if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
untill of later daies that the Popes hving gotten into their hands the bestowing of the most and best ecclesiasticall Preferments in Europe did finde out their own advantage in that behalfe above a generall Councell which hath neither Dignities nor Benefices to bestowe When or where or by whom the primacy of Order was conferred upon Saint Peter it concernes R. C. to enquire more then me They have yet another evasion that the highest ecclesiasticall Power was given not only to Saint Peter but to all the rest of the Apostles but to Saint Peter as an ordinary Pastor to descend from him to his Successors because they were appointed heads of the universall Church which they could not govern without universall Power and to the rest of the Apostles as Delegates or Commissioners only for tearm of their lives not to descend to their Successors This distinction I called a drowsie dream hatched lately without either reason or authority divine or humane Against this he takes exception And I am ready to maintain my assertion That if he can produce but one Text of holy Scripture expounded in this sense by any one ancient Interpreter or but one Sentence of any one Councel or single Father for a thousand years after Christ who taught any such Doctrine or made any such distinction as this is directly without far fetched consequences and I wâ—ll retract but I am confident he cannot produce one Author or Authority in the point All his reason is because Saint Peter was the ordinary Pastor of the Church and the rest of the Apostles but Delegates which is a meer begging of the question Neither was Saint Peter sole Pastor of the Church nor his universal Authority necessary to a true Pastor neither were the Apostles meer Delegates for then they could have had no Successors which yet he acknowledgeth that they had Sometimes Bellarmine will admit no proper Successors of the Apostles no not of St. Peter as an Apostle At other times he makes the Pope an Apostolicall Bishop his See to be an Apostolicall See and his Office to be an Apostleship It is strange the Spirit of God should be so silent in a piece of Doctrine which they assert to be necessary and that the blessed Apostles and the Nicene Fathers and holy Athanasius should be so forgetfull as not to insert it into their Creeds But that the whole Church should be ignorant of such a mystery for fifteen hundred years is not credible I passe by their comparison of a Bishop who is Pastor and ordinary of his Diocesse whose Office descends to his Successors and a Frier licenced by the Pope to Preach throughout the same Diocesse whose Office determineth with his Life So what they can not prove they endeavour to illustrate Before they told us that the Apostles were the Vicars of Christ are they now become the Vicars of Saint Peter and his Coadjutors Before they taught us that the Apostolicall power was summa plenissima potestas a most high a most full power and comprehended all Ecclesiasticall power and is it now changed to a licence to Preach No the Apostles had more then licences to Preach even as ample power to govern as Saint Peter himself The Pope having instituted one man into a Bishoprick cannot during his incumbency give the joint government of his Church to another This were to revoke his former grant I confesse that which R. C. saith is in part a truth That the rest of the Apostles did not leave an universall and Apostolicall authority and jurisdiction to their successors But it is not the whole truth for no more did Saint Peter himself The Apostles had diverse things peculiar to their persons and proper for the first planters of the Gospel Which were not communicated to any of their successors As universality of jurisdiction for which their successors have assignation to particular charges Immediate or extraordinary vocation for which their Successors have episcopall Ordination The gift of strange Tongues and infallibility of Judgment for which we have Christian Schools and Universities The grace of doing miracles and giving the holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands If the Bishops of Rome will take upon them to be Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and pretend that their Office is an Apostleship and that they themselves are truely Apostolici excluding all others from that priviledge let us see them doe some Miracles or speak strange Languages which were Apostolicall qualifications If they cannot certainly they are not Saint Peters Heirs ex asse and though their See be Apostolicall yet their Office is no Apostleship Nor may they challenge more then they shew good evidence for or then the Church is pleased to conferre upon them The Bishops of Rome pretend to none of these Priviledges but only this of universall jurisdiction for though they challenge besides this an infallibility of judgment yet it is not an Apostolicall infallibility because they challenge no infallibility by immediate revelation from God but from the diligent use of the means neither doe they challenge an infallibility in their Sermons and writings as the Apostles did but only in the conclusions of matters of Faith And why doe they pretend to this Apostolicall qualification more then any of the rest Either because that if they should pretend to any of the rest the deceit would presently be discovered for all men know that they can work no Miracles nor speak strange Languages nor have their calling immediately from Heaven but are elected by their Conclave of Cardinals many times not without good tugging for it Or else because this claim of universall power and authority doth bring more moliture to their mill and more advantage to the Court of Rome This is certain that when the Pope is first elected Bishop it may be of some other See before he be elected Pope he is ordained after the ordinary form of all other Bishops he receives no other no larger character no more authority and power either of order or of jurisdiction then other ordinary Bishops doe Well after this he is elected Pope but he is ordeined no more Then seeing the power of the Keies and all habituall jurisdiction is derived by Ordination and every Bishop receiveth as much habituall jurisdiction at his Ordination as the Pope himself tell me first how the Pope comes to be the root of all Spirituall jurisdiction Which though it be not the generall Tenet of the Roman Church as R. C. saith truely yet it is the common Doctrin of the Roman Court. Secondly tell me how comes this dilatation of his power and this Apostolicall Universality Since all men doe confesse that the same power and authority is necessary to the extension of a character or Grace given by Ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not Humane but Divine But the election of the Cardinals is a meer Humane policy without all manner of Sacramentall virtue and therefore can neither
render his Judgment infallible nor his Jurisdiction universal What can the new election doe Only apply the new matter that is make him Bishop of that See whereunto he is elected They who elect him are the Bishops of the Roman Province and the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Rome Fit persons indeed to chuse a Bishop of Rome but no fit persons to chuse an universall Bishop for the whole Church It were too much honor for one Nation to have the perpetuall Regiment of Christs Church throughout all ages And whom doe the Conclave chuse An universall Pastor No but expressely a Bishop of Rome They have a third novelty as ill as either of these which I touched even now that the Regiment of the Church being monarchicall as in a Kingdome all Civill authority is derived from the King so in the Church all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope If all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be derived from the Pope as all Civil Authority is from the King then as Civill Magistrates doe exercise their Civil authority in the name of the King so Bishops ought to exercise their Spirituall jurisdiction in the name of the Pope But this they doe not this they never did Again if Spirituall jurisdiction be derived to Bishops from the Pope by what way by what means by what channell doth it descend Either it must be by Commission or by Ordination But it is not by Commission No Bishops did ever need or expect any Commission from Rome for the exercise of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within his Diocesse Neither is it by Ordination they are very few indeed that receive Ordination from the Pope How many thousand Bishops have been and are still in the World that never received any Ordination from any Pope either mediately or immediately But derive the line of their Succession from the other Apostles If Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be conveied by Ordination then it is a part of the character or Grace conferred which is Divine and Sacramentall I hope the Pope will be wiser then to challenge to himself the conferring of Sacramentall Grace I made a question how the Bishop of Rome came to be Saint Peters Heir ex asse to the exclusion of his eldest Brother the Bâ—shop of Antioch where Saint Peter was first Bishop where Christians had their first denomination I had reason for I never read that the Church was governed by the Law of Gavellkind that the youngest must inherite I said moreover that they produced nothing that I had seen but a blinde Legend out of a counterfeit Hegesippus I spake not this to the disparagement of that venerable Saint but to discredit that supposititious treatise He saith If I had read Bellarmine I should have found the same testified by Saint Marcellus the Pope by Saint Ambrose and Sainâ— Athanasius I have read Bellarmine and I finde no such thing testified by Marcellus more then this That Peter came to Rome by the commandement of the Lord. Nor by Athanasius more then this That when Peter heard that he must undergoe Martyrdome at Rome he did not lay aside his voyage but came to Rome with joy What conclusion can any man make from these premisses Saint Ambrose indeed saith more but as little to his purpose That Saint Peter being about to goe without the Walls in the night did see Christ meet him in the gate and enter into the City to whom Peter said Lord whether goest thou Christ answered I come to Rome to be crucified again And that Peter understood that the answer of Christ had relation to his own Martyrdome I have likewise read what Bellarmine citeth out of Saint Gregory elsewhere that Christ said to Saint Peter I come to Rome to be crucified again For he who had been crucified long before in his own person said that he was to be erucified again in the person of Saint Peter Though these things be altogether impertinent yet I rehearse them the more willingly to let the Reader see upon what silly grounds they build conclusions of great weight We receive the Fathers as competent Witnesses of the faith and practise and tradition of the Church in their respective ages we attribute much to their expositions of the holy Text but in those things which they had upon the credit of a supposititious Author the conclusion alwaies followes the weaker part How common a thing hath it been for credulous piety to beleeve and to record rumors and uncertain relations If they see no hurt in them and if they tended to piety But in a case of this moment to give an infallible Judge to the Church and a spirituall Prince to the Christian World to whom all are bound to submit under pain of damnation we ought to have had better Authority then such a blinde History Yet this is all the plea they have in the World for the divine right of their succession How came Saint Ambroâ—e or Saint Gregory to know a matter of fact done some centuries of years before they were born They had it not by Revelation nor other Authority for it then this of a counterfeit Hegesippus in the judgement both of Baronius and Bellarmine except only the borrowed name not much ancienter then themselves Supposing that Saint Peter had had such a spirituall monarchy as they fancy and supposing that this Apocryphall Relation was as true as the Gospell yet it makes nothing in the World for the Popes succession to Saint Peter therein but rather the contrary That Saint Peter sub finem vitae just upon the point of his death was leaving of Rome sheweth probably that he had no intention to die there or to fix his See there That Christ did premonish him of his Martyrdome in Rome and that he asâ—ented to it with joy hath nothing in it to prove or so much as to insinuate either the Act of Christ or the Act of St. Peter to invest the Bishop of Rome with the Sovereignty of Ecclesiasticall Power Had they urged this history only to shew how Christ fore-armes his Servants against impendent dangers or how he reputes their sufferings for his sake to be his own it had been to the purpose But they might even as well prove the Popes Supremacie out of our Saviours words in the Gospell to Saint Peter When thou art old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another shall girde thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not For our Saviour did signifie by these words by what death St. Peter should glorifie God These words have authority thâ—â—gh they be nothing to the purpose but those they cite have neither authority nor any thing that comes neer the purpose They see this well enough themselves what a weake unjoynted and unnecessary consequence this is wherefore they suppose that Christ said something to Saint Peter which is not recorded to command him to fixe his Chair at Rome Non est improbabile Dominum etiam aperte
cause is desperate Howsoever he proveth his intention out of Gildas who confesseth that he composed his History non tam ex scriptis Patriae c not so much from British Writings or Monuments which had beene either burned by their enemies with fire or carried beyond Sea by their banished Citizens as from transmarine relations Though it were supposed that all the British Records were utterly perished this is no answer at all to my demand so long as all the Roman Registers are extant Yea so extant that Platina the Popes Librarie keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the primitive Bishops of Rome and the persons ordained It was of these Registers that I spake let them produce their Registers Let them shew what British Bishops they have ordained or what British Appeals they have received for the first six hundred years Though he be pleased to omit it I shewed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter eleven by Linus fifteen by Clement six by Anacletus five by Evaristus five by Alexander and four by Sixtus c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province none to spare for Britain He saith Saint Peter came into Britain converted many made Bishops Priests and Deacons That Saint Elutherius sent hither his Legates Fugatius and Damianus who baptized the King Queen and most of his People That St. Victor sent Legates into Scotland it seemeth they had no names who baptized the King Queen and his Nobility That Saint Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts That Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland where as yet was no Bishop And Saint Patrick into Ireland and Saint Germane and Lupus into Britain to confute the Pelagian Heresie And in the year 596 St. Gregory sent over St. Austin and his Companions to convert the Saxons and gave him power over all the Bishops in Britain and gave him power to erect two Archiepilcopall Sees and twenty four Episcopall And moreover that Dubritius Primate of Britannie was Legate to the See Apostolick And lastly That Saint Samson had a Pall from Rome I confesse here are store of instances for Preaching and Baptizing and ordeining and Converting but if every word he saith was true it is not at all materiall to the question Our question is concerning exterior Jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiae But the Acts mentioned by him are all Acts of the Key of Order not of the Key of Jurisdiction If he doe thus mistake one Key for another he will never be able to open the right dore He accustometh himself to call every ordinarie Messenger a Legate But let him shew me that they ever exercised Legantine authority in Britain That he doth not because he cannot The Britannick and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to forrein Nations to convert them to baptize them to ordain them Pastors yet without challenging any Jurisdiction over them Now to his particular instances We should be glad that he could prove St. Peter was the first converter of Britain and take it as an honor to the Britannick Church But Metaphrastes is too young a witness his authority over small and his person too great a stranger to our affaires If it could be made appear out of Eusebius it would finde more credit with us If St. Peter did ever tread upon British ground in probability it was before he came first to Rome which will not be so pleasing to the Romanists For being banished by Claudius he went to Hierusalem and so to Antioch and there governed that Church the second time Whether St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Iames or Simon Zelotes or Aristobulus or Ioseph of Arimathea was the first converter of Britain it makes nothing to the point of Jurisdiction or our subjection to the Bishop of Rome But for Ioseph of Arimathea we have the concurrent testimonies of our own Writers and others the tradition of the English Church the reverent respect borne to Glastenbury the place where he lived and died the ancient characters of that Church wherein it is stiled the beginning of Religion in this Island the buriall place of the Saints builded by the Disciples of the Lord. The very name of the Chappell called St. Iosephs the Armes of King Arthur upon the walls and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the second doe all proclaime this truth aloud His second instance hath more certainty in it That Pope Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus two learned Divines into Britain to baptize King Lucius But it is as true that Lucius was converted before either in whole or in part and sent two eminent Divines of his own Subjects Eluanus Avalonus Eluan of Glastenbury the Seminarie of Christian Religion in Britain and Medvinus of Belga that is of Wells a place neer adjoyning to Glastenbury to Rome to intreat this favour from Pope Eleutherius So whatsoever was done in this case as it was no act of Jurisdiction so it was not done by Eleutherius by his own authority but by licence and upon request of King Lucius And not to diminish the deserts of Fugatius and Damianus who in all probability were strangers and understood not the Language certainly Eluan and Medwin and many more British Natives had much more opportunity to contribute to the conversion of their native Countrie then forreiners who were necessitated to speak by an Interpreter at least to the vulgar Britans Concerning Pope Victors sending of Legates into Scotland to baptize the King Queen and Nobles when he tells us who was the King who were the Legates and who is his Author he may expect a particular answer But if there be nothing in it but baptizing he may as well save his labour unless he think that baptizing is an act of Jurisdiction which his own Schooles make not to be so much as an act of the Key of Order Ireland was the ancient Scotland The Irish Scots were converted by St. Patrick the British Scots by St. Columba Next for Saint Ninian he was a Britan not a Roman Neither doth venerable Bede say that he was taught the Christian Faith at Rome simply but that he was taught it there regularly that is in respect of the observation of Easter the administration of Baptism and sundry other Rites wherein the British Church differed from the Roman Nor yet doth Bede say that he was sent from Rome to convert the Picts His words are these The Southern Picts as men say long before this had left the errour of their Idolatry and received the true Faith by the preaching of Ninias a Bishop a most reverend and holy man of the British Nation who was taught the Faith and mysteries of truth regularly at Rome Capgrave findes as much credit with us as he brings authority And in this case saith nothing at all to the purpose because
nothing of Jurisdiction From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland And not forgetfull of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto we finde nothing but Preaching and Converting and Christening not one syllable of any Jurisdiction Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kinde and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act Then certainly there were none in those dayes Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots is disputable But this is certain that whithersoever he was sent he was rejected and shortly after died In whose place succeeded St. Patrick Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon c. came to St. Patrick and declared it who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator straightway took ship c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion He saith The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagian Heresie and both Britans Scots Picts and Irish willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes nor denyed that they had any authoritie over them I am wearie of so many impertinencies Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church but of their charity and devotion which we wish their Successors would imitate I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus If it were so it concernes not this cause But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod to assist the Britans their neighbours against the Pelagians And it is most probable for they were both French Bishops St. German of Anxewe Lupus of Troyes Baronius labours to reconcile these two different relations thus It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod or it may be that Caelestine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased Admit either of these suppositions was true it will bring no advantage to his cause but much disadvantage If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch it is not credible that the Britannick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours and not at all to their Superior He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes He is still dreaming of Legates if they were Legates they were the Synods Legates not the Popes As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church which they sent to help them were Legates eodem tempore ex Britanniâ directa Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance Had they not reason to wellcome them whom themselves had invited who were come only upon their occasion Or what occasion had they to deny their authority who neither did usurpe any authority nor pretend to any authority They came to dispute not to judge Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes Apostolical Bishops not from their mission but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria authoritas c. That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons is most true that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them is most untrue Touching the precise time of his coming Historiographers doe not agree exactly All accord that it was about the six hundreth year of Christ a little more or less Before this time Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was After this time we confess that the Bishops of Rome by the consent or connivence of the Saxon Kings as they came to be converted by degrees did pretend to some formalities of right or authority over the English Church at first in matters of no great consequence as bestowing the Pall or the like But without the consent or against the good pleasure of the King they had no more power at all Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius primate of Britain was Legate of the See Apostolick I should sooner have beleeved it if he had proved it out of Gildas who lived in or about the age of Dubritius then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth who lived so many hundred years after his death whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur and resigned his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur not of the Pope King Arthur began his reign as it is commonly computed about the year 516. perhaps something sooner or later according to different accounts But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus from whence we demonstrate our exemption And so it can neither advantage his cause nor prejudice ours We are told of store of Roman Legats yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction pretended to be done by any of them Certainly either they were no Papall Legates or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any legantine Court or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes St. Samson saith he had a Pall from Rome wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether and my words also I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ but the abuse of it that is the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches When they would not suffer an Archbishop duely ellected and invested to exercise his function untill he had bought a Pall from Rome I know the contrary that they were in use formerly But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour conferred by Christian Emperours upon the Church namely Constantine and Valentinian as is most probable or assumed by Patriarches is a disputable point This is certain other Patriarches and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times which they received not from Rome This Samson was Archbishop of Wales and had his Pall But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome It may be that they had
Heraclea to be equall in dignitie power and all sorts of priviledges to the Bishop of Rome And this very ground is assigned by the Fathers because that Citie Constantinople was become the seat of the Empire So great a desire had the Fathers to conform the Ecclesiasticall Regiment to the Politicall Or without a Councell as Iustinian the Emperour by his sole Legislative Power erected the Patriarchate of Iustiniana prima and endowed it with a new Province substracted from other Bishops freeing it from all Appeals The like prerogatives he gave to the Bishop of Carthage notwithstanding the pretensions of the Bishop of Rome And this was not done in a corner but inserted into the publick Laws of the Empire for all the world to take notice of it So unquestionable was the power of Sovereign Princes in things concerning the Order and externall Regiment of the Church in those dayes that neither the Bishop of Rome nor any other Patriarch or Bishop did ever complain against it Shall the presence of an Exarch or Lieutenant be able to dignifie the Citie or place of his residence with Patriarchall Rites and shall not the presence and authority of the Sovereign himself be much more able to doe it Is so much respect due to the Servants and is not more due to the Master That the British and the English Kings had the same Imperiall Authority to alter Patriarchates within their own Dominions to exempt their Subjects from the Jurisdiction of one Primate and transferre them to another I shewed in the vindication by the examples of King Arthur who translated the Primacy from Caer-Leon to St. Davids above eleven hundred years since And Henry the first who subjected St. Davids to Canterbury above five hundred years since for the benefit of his Subjects Neither did any man then complain that they usurped more Power then of right did belong unto them This is not to alter the Institutions of the universall Church or of generall Councells supposing they had made any such particular establishment but on the contrarie to tread in their stepps and to pursue their grounds and to doe that with all due submission to their authority which they would have done themselves in this present exigence of Affairs Make all things the same they were and we are the same To persist in an old observation when the grounds of it are quite chaâ—ged and the end for which the observation was made calleth upon us for an alteration is not obedience but obstinacie Generall Councells did never so fixe Patriarchall Power to particular Churches as that their establishment should be like a Law of the Medes and Persians never to be altered upon any change of the Christian world whatsoever But to be changed by themselves as we see they did establish first three Protopatriarchates then four then five Or when generall Councells cannot be had which is the miserable condition of these times by such as have the Supreme Authority Civill and Ecclesiasticall in those places where the change is to be made Suppose a Patriarchall See should be utterly ruined and destroyed by warre or other accidents as some have been or should change the Bible into the Alchoran and turn Turks as others have done suppose a succession of Patriarchs should quit or resigne their Patriarchall power explicitly or implicitly or forfeit it by disufe or abuse Or should obtrude hereticall errors and Idolatrous practises upon the Churches under their Jurisdiction so as to leave no hope of remedy from their Successors Oâ— should goe about to enforce them by new Laws and Oaths to maintain their usurpations over generall Councells to which all Christians are more obliged then to any Patriarch Lastly suppose a Patriarchall Citie shall lie in the Dominions of one Prince and the Province in the Dominions of another who are in continuall warre and hostility the one with the other so as the Subjects can neither have licence nor security to make use of their Patriarch ought notthe respective Provinces in all these cases to provide for themselves Put the case that a King going to warre in the holy Land should commit the Regencie to his Councell and they constitute a Governor of a principall Citie who failes in his trust and makes the Citizens swear allegiance to himself and to maintain him against the Councell all men will judge that the Citizens should doe well if he were incorrigible to turne him out of their Gates Christ was this King who ascending into the holy of holies left the Regiment of his Church with the Apostolicall College and their Successors a generall Councell They made the Bishop of Rome a principall Governor and he rebells against them There needs no further application Now to close up this point the end is more excellent then the means The end of the primitive Fathers in establishing the externall Regiment of the Church in a conformity to the civill Government was salus Populi Christiani the ease and advantage of Christians the avoyding of confusion and the clashing of Jurisdictions We pursue the same ends with them we approve of their means in particular as most excellent for those times and in generall for all times that is the conforming of the one Regiment to the other But God alone is without any shadow of turning by change It is not in our power to prevent the conversion of sublunarie things Empires and Cities have their diseases and their deaths as well as men One is another was a third shall be Mother Cities become Villages and poor Villages become Mother Cities The places of the residence of the greatest Kings and Emperors are turned to desarts for Owles to screech in and Satyrs to dance in Then as a good Pilate must move his rudder according to the variable face of the heavens So if we will pursue the prudent grounds of the primitive Fathers we must change our externall Regiment according to the change of the Empire This is better then by adhering too strictly to the private interest of particular places to destroy that publick end for which externall Regiment at first was so established I confesse that this is most proper for a generall Councell to redress Every thing is best loosed by the same authority by which it was bound But in case of necessity where there can be no recourse to a generall Councell every Sovereign Prince within his own Dominions with the advise and concurrence of his Clergy and due submission to a future oecumenicall Councell is obliged to provide remedies for growing inconveniences and to take order that externall Discipline be so administred as may most conduce to the glorie of God and the benefit of his Christian Subjects I made three conditions of a lawfull reformation just grounds due moderation and sufficient authority He faith Henry the eight had none of these First no just ground because his ground was that the Pope would not give him leave to forsake his lawfull wife and
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
assenting to the erecting of it And I aske how it was not legally established which was established by soveraign authority according to the direction of the Convocation with the confirmation of the Parliament What other legall establishment can there be in England By the Lawes of England a Bishop had but his single vote either in Parliament or Convocation Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops whether for not assenting or for other reasons will require further proof than his bare assertion This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Papacy in the reign of Henry the eighth He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament under King Charles Why should I add a notorious untruth as contrary to my conscience as to my affections I might have said oppressed I could not say suppressed The externall splendor was abated when the Baronies of the Bishops and their votes in Parliament were taken away but the Order was not extinguished So far from it that King Charles himself suffered as a Martyr for the English Church If his meaning be that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royall he cannot be so great a stranger in England as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity Yet he is pleased to stile it a dead Church and me the Advocate of a dead Church even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves or as the Sun is set when it is behinde a Cloud or as the Gold is destroyed when it is melting in the Furnace When I see a seed cast into the ground I doe not aske where is the greeness of the leaves where is the beauty of the flowers where is the sweetnes of the fruit but I expect all these in their due season Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe The rain is fallen the wind hath blown and the floods have beaton upon their Church but it is not fallen for it is founded upon a Rock The light is under a Bushell but it is not extinguished And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candlestick yet the Church of England is not dead whilest the Catholick Church survives Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution And though some of the Church doe suffer yet it is not for Religion but matters of State What can a man expect in knotty questions from them who are so much transported with prejudice as to deny those things which are obvious to every eie If it be but some that have suffered it is such a some as their Church could never shew wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed may read the Martyrology of London or the List of the Universities and from that paw guess at the proportion of the Lion But perhaps all this was for matters of State No our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State nor our Ecclesiasticall Revenues exposed to sale for matters of State The refusall of a schismaticall Covenant is no matter of State How many of the orthodox Clergy without pretence of any other delinquency have been beggered how many necessitated to turn Mechanicks or day-Laborers how many starved how many have had their hearts broken how many have been imprisoned how many banished from their native Soil and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World No man is so blinde as he that will not see His tenth Section is a summary or repetition of what he hath already said wherein I finde nothing of weight that is new but onely one authority out of St. Austin That Catholicks are every where and Hereticks every where but Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks different every where If by Catholicks he understand Roman Catholicks they are not every where not in Russia nor in Aethiopia and excepting some hand-fulls for the most part upon toleration not in any of the Eastern Churches The words of Saint Austin are these Vbicunque sunt isti illic Catholica sicut in Africa ubi vos non autem ubicunque Catholica est aut vos istis aut Heresis quaelibet earum Wheresoever they are there is the Catholick Church as in Africa where you are but wheresoever the Catholick Church is you are not nor any of those Heresies St. Austins scope is to shew that the Catholick Church is more diffused or rather universall than any Sect or all Sects put together If you please let this be the Touchstone between you and us But you will say that you are united every where and we are different every where Nothing less You are united in one pretended head which some of you acknowledge more some less We are united in the same Creed the same Sacraments and for the most part the same discipline Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place of the Novatians Arrians Patripassians Valentinians Patricians Apellites Marcionites Ophites all which condemned all others but themselves and thereby did separate themselves Schismatically from the Catholick Church as it is to be feared that you doe Our case is quite contrary we reform our selves but condemn no others CHAP. 3. Whether Protestants were Authors of the separation from Rome WE are now come from stating the Question to proofs where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the province which he hath undertaken To shew that Protestants were not the Authors of the Separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks I produced first the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point that the Bishop of Rome had no greater Jurisdiction within England conferred upon him by God in the Scripture than any other forrein Bishop Secondly the decrees of two of our nationall Synods Thirdly six or seven Statutes or Acts of Parliament Fourthly the attestation of the prime Roman Catholick Bishops and Clergy in their printed Books in their Epistles in their Sermons in their Speeches in their Institution Fiftly the unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome of England testified by Bishop Gardiner and of the Kingdome of Ireland proved out of the Councell Book Lastly the Popes own Book wherein he interdicted and excommunicated the whole Church of England before the reformation made by Protestants So as apparently we were chased away from them Heare the judgement of a Stranger This year the Pope brake the wise patience or rather dissimulation which for four years together he had used towards England And sent against the King a terrible thundring Bull such as never was used by his Predecessors nor imitated by his Successors It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is What doth he answer to all this Not one word And so I take my first ground pro confesse That Protestants were not Authors of the separation of the English
just And if the Subject will not obey his blood is upon his own head The only question is whether there was at that time not only a pretended but a reall necessity to make those Laws which they call sanguinary or bloody for the preservation of the Common wealth This is the case between the Romanists and us upon these two hinges this controversy is moved Then to leave the Thesis and come unto the Hypothesis and to shew that at that time there was a reall necessity for the making of those Laws First let it be observed that after the secession of the English Church from the Court of Rome the succeeding Popes have for the most part looked upon England with a very ill eye Witness that terrible and unparalleled excommunication and interdiction of England a deprivation of Henry the eighth formerly mentioned published at Dunkirk because they durst bring it no neerer Witness the Bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their oaths of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceeding Witness the Popes negotiations with the English Spanish French and Portugheses to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther and the frame of the Government altered published at Rome by Hieronimo Catena Secretary to Cardinall Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth Witness the Logantine authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his Rebellion And the Phaenix plume sent to Terowen to incourage him likewise in his Rebellion and a plenary Indulgence for him and all his adherents and assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King Iames from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman catholick Interest This is not all In the second place the Popes to have the greater influence upon England did themselves found or conserve severall Colleges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway where the English youth were trained up more for the advantage of the Pope than of their Prince and native Countrie What those Principles were which were then infused into them I have neither means at present nor in truth desire to inquire because I hope that at this day they are disclaimed by all or the most learned and moderate persons of those Societies Only for the justification of my native Countrie give me leave to set downe some of them in the words of the former learned Historiographer Suspicions also were daily raised by the great number of Priests creeping more and more into England who privily felt mens mindes spread abroad That Princes excommunicate were to be deposed and whispered in corners That such Princes as professed not the Roman Religion had forfeited their Title and Regall Authority That those men which had entered into holy Orders were by a certain ecclesiasticall freedome exempted from all Iurisdiction of Princes and not bound by their Laws nor ought to reverence their Majesty And that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole World yea even in temporall matters And that the Magistrates of England were no lawfull Magistrates and therefore not to be accounted for Magistrates Yea that all things whatsoever done by the Queens authority from the time that the Bull declaratory of Pius quintus was published were by the Laws of God and Man altogether void and to be esteemed nothing And some of them dissembled not that they were returned into England with no other intent then by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oathes of allegiance and obedience to the Queen Judg how such Emissaties deserved to be welcomed into a Kingdome More might be added but this it self is enough or too much Lastly View all the Treasons and Rebellions that were in Queen Elizabeth's time and see from what source they did spring Parsons proposed to Papists the deposing of the Queen so far forth that some of them thought to have delivered him into the Magistrates hands And wrote a Book under the name of Doleman to intitle the Infanta of Spain to the Crown of England Of Sanders I have spoken formerly Only let me add this That when he was found dead they found in his pouch Orations and Epistles to confirme the Rebells with promise of assistance from the Bishop of Rome and others Parre confessed That that which finally setled him in his treasonable purpose to kill the Queen was the reading of Allens Book that Princes excommunicated for Heresie were to be deprived of life Ballard was himself a Priest of the Seminarie of Rhemes See his conspiracy I pass by the commotions raised in Scotland by Bruce Creiton and Haies Squire accused Walpoole for putting him upon it to poyson the Queen I speake not of the confession of Iohn Nicholas nor the testimonie of Eliot mentioned in their own Apology because they are not of undoubted faith This is most certain That when Campian was interrogated before his death whether Queen Elizabeth were a lawfull and rightfull Queen he refused to answer And being asked If the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope he openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope The same Author addeth That his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some treachery Lay all these together their disloyall answers their seditious tenets so many treacherous attempts so many open Rebellions so many depositions and deprivations and exclusions so many Books brim-full of prodigious treason At such a time when the seditious opinions of that party were in their Zenith when seditious persons crowded over daily in such numbers when the Heir apparent of the Crown of England was a Roman Catholick And let any reasonable man judge whether the Kingdome of England had not just cause of feare whether they were not necessitated to provide nequid detrimenti caperet Respublica that the Commonwealth should sustain no loss whether our Statesmen who did then sit at the sterne were not obliged to their Prince and to their Countrie to provide by all means possible for the security of their Prince and tranquility of their Countrie which could not be done at that time without the exclusion of such Bigots and Bowtifeus from among them nor they be possibly excluded but by such severe Lawes These are the very reasons given in the Edict it self That it did plainly appear to her Majesty and her Councell by many examinations by their own Letters and confessions and by the actuall conspiracies of the like
would content himself therewith But the chief grounds of our separation are those which are inherent in the Papacy it self qua talis as it is now defended as they seek to obtrude it upon us the lawless exorbitant oppression of the Roman Court the sovereignty of the Pope above general Councels his legislative and judiciary Power in all Christian Kingdomes against the will of the right owners his pretended right to convocate Synods and confirm Synods and dissolve Synods and hold legantine Courts and obtrude new points of Faith as necessary Articles and receive the last appeals and dispose of all ecclesiasticall Dignities and Benefices at his pleasure and impose Tenths and first-Fruits and Subsidies and Pensions to invest Bishops and sell Pardons and Indulgences and Palls These and the like are not the Faults of Innocent the tenth or Vrban the eighth or Sextus or Pius or Alexander or Clement or any pâ—rticular Pope But they are the Faults of the Pâ—pacy it self woven into the body of it and without the acknowledgement of which they will suffer us to hold no communion with the Papacy I doe not say that they are insepâ—rable for the time hath been when the Papacy was without those Blemishes but that it is folly at this time to hope from them for the anceient liberty of the Church as the Country-man expected that the river should be râ—n out and become drie Rusticus expectat ut defluat amnis at ille Labitur labetur in omne volubilis aevum We expected remedy and hoped for reformation from the time of Henry the first in whose reign their encroachments did begin to grow signall and notorious untill the daies of Henry the eighth throughout the reigns of seventeen succeeding Kings and found not the least ease from them but what we carved out our selves No Law of God or man doth require that we should wait eternally The Lord of the Vineyard thought three years enough to expect fruit of the fruitless Figtree and when it improved not in the fourth year the Sentence issued against it cut it down why cumbreth it the ground He urgeth that if some Popes have wronged England temporally far more Popes have benifited it much more both temporrally and spiritually Sufficit unus huic operi This were more comely in our mouths then in theirs Some man would goe make an estimate of Papall Importations as Parchment and Lead and Wax and Crosses Agnus dei's and Reliques And their Exportations Gold Silver Jewels and whatsoever the land afforded either for necâ—ssity or delight But I will spare his modesty and suppose more then ever he will be able to prove Ancient virtues or benefits do not justifie an old institution when it is grown useless and subject to desperate abuses The brasen Serpent was instituted by God himself it was a singular type of Christ it saved the temporall lives of the Israelites and pointed them out the right way to eternall life Yet when it was become useless and abused over much Hezekiah is commended for breaking it in pieces and calling it Nehushtan an useless piece of common brass that had quite lost its ancient virtue The Order of the Templers was instituted about the year 1120. Scarcely any Order can shew such an hopefull beginning at their first institution or such an huge progress towards grearness in so short a revolution of time He who shall read these extraordinary praises which are given them by St. Bernard who is thought to have been the Author of their rule will take them rather to have been a Society of Angels then of mortall men Yet in the daies of Clement the fifth they were generally suppressed throughout the whole world as it were in an instant not for common faults but horrid crimes and prodigious vilanies by the joint consent of the occidentall Church and sovereign Princes I inquire not whether their accusation was just or not but from hence I doe collect that in the judgement of this occidentall world a good institution may be deservedly abrogated for subsequent abuses As we had not the same latitude of power which they who censured them hâ—d so we did not act without our own Sphear or the Bounds of the English Dominions In the vindication I urged three points wherein the Romans doe agree with us First that sovereign Princes not only may but in justice are obliged to repress the tyrany of ecclesiasticall Judges and protect their Subjects from their violence and free them from their oppressed Yoke To this he answereth nothing Secondly that Princes may be inabled either by grant or by prescription I added by their sovereign authority over the whole Body politick to exercise all externall ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction by themselves or by fit Delegates and to make ecclesiasticall Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church to which their Subjects owe obedience This alone were sufficient to free us from Schism But to all this likewise he saith not one word good or bad Thirdly that it is lawfull in severall cases to substract obedience from the Pope And among other proofs I cited the Councell of Towers To this only he answers That they acknowledged it lawfull to withdraw obedience from this or that Pope in this or that case but not from Papall Authority it self Whereas I shewed him in the vindication that the same equitie which doth allow substraction of obedience from this or that Pope for personall faults as Schisme or Simony doth likewise allow substraction of obedience from him and his Successors for faulty Principles as obtruding new Creeds pressing of unlawfull Oathes palpable usurpation of undoubted Rites even untill they be reformed Papall Authority without the Pope is but an imaginary idea whosoever substracts obedience from the true Pope substracts obedience from the Papall Authority Perhaps indeed not simply or absolutely but respectively as he saith in this or that case But what if the Pope will not suffer them to pay their obedience in part so far as it is due but have it entire according to his own demands or none at all Then it is not they who separate themselves from Papall Authority but it is Papall Authority which separates them from it Either he understands Papall Authority such as it ought to be de jure and then we have substracted no obedience from it for we ought it none and are not unwilling for peace sake to pay it more respect then we doe owe. Or else by Papall Authority he understands a spirituall Monarchy such as it is now with superiority above generall Councells and infallibility of Judgement and legislative Authority and patronage of all ecclesiasticall Preferments c. And then the universall Church did never acknowledge any such Papall Authority And then to withdraw our obedience from it is not to substract obedience from a lawfull but from an unlawfull and tyrannicall Power When sovereign Princes doe withdraw obedience from this or that Pope in this or that
case they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome as whether the Pope have invaded their priviledges or usurped more Authority then is due unto him or in contemning his censures which the Councell of Towers doth expresly allow them to doe and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not Yeeld thus much and the question is at an end That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties and of papall oppressions and usurpations and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit That Papall Authority is instituted immediately by God but not Regall Cujus contrarium verum est He was once or seemed to be of another minde For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they Kings receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters Saint Paul saâ—th expresly speaking of civill Powers The Powers that be are ordeined of God and whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God and reign by God then they are instituted by God Therefore they are justly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things He who said by me Kings reign never said by me Popes reign Kings may inherit by the Law of man or be elected by the Suffrages of men But the Regall Office and Regall Power is immediately from God No man can give that which he himself hath not The People have not power of Life and Death That must come from God By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their power to make one Father of a Country to whom doth he owe his power but to God from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ his Patriarchall power from the Church and Monarchicall power from himself After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers the subjection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mauritius the Emperor though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors and the translation of primacies by our Kings And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation first the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England Secondly their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures Thirdly because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall discipline Fourthly sundry other inconveniences to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome to have approved the Popes rebellion against generall Councels and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations Lastly the priviledge of the Britannick Churches the Popes disclaiming all his Patriarchall authority and their challenging of all this by Divâ—ne right which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome Lastly I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done All this he passeth by in silence as if it did not concern the cause at all Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope the Papacy and the Roman Church which hath been so often confuted already and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes As if all these things which are mentioned here and set down at large in the vindication were but some infirmitives or some petty faults of some few Popes I have shewed him clearly that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes but the faults of the Papacy it self And as for forsaking the Church of Rome he doth us wrong I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place that we have not forsaken it but only left their Communion in some points wherein they had left their Ancestors we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church a Mother to the Saxon Church but as a Lady or Mistrisse to no Church Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation to shew that they were insufficient The new Creed of Pius the 4 th and the withholding the Cup from the Laity Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds bâ—sides these Yet I confesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest First saith he The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation because the separation was made before the Creed He saith true if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed that did offend us But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary conditions of their Communion So as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the 4 th dealt in grosse his predecessors by retaile They fashioned the severall rods and he bound them up into a bundle He saith That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick persons as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed proposed by them to Ministers Pius the 4 th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks Seculars and Regulars to swear to his new Creed but he imposed it upon all Christians as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest they are the very words of the Bull as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved This is a greater Obligation then an Oath and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolicall Creed We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths extra quam non est salus without which there is no Salvation nor injoin Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as theologicall
prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches He referred the cause of Caecilianus an Ecclesiasticall cause to Miltiades Bishop of Rome and Marcus and Rhetecius and Maternus and Marinus as his Delegates or Commissioners visum est mihi it hath seemed good to me c. He accepted Appeals from the judgment of the Bishops He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to doe justice upon Ecclesiasticall Delinquents He sent for the Bishops assembled by his commandement at a Councell first at Tyrus then at Hierusalem that they should repaire with speed to Constantinople evestigio ad castra nostra maturetis to give an account to him of their actions and to shew how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments In a word he medled so much in Ecclesiasticall affaires that he made himself as a common Bishop constituted by God I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanitie we rejoyce but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests Eusebius and other Bishops he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the Minister of God And accordingly they were spoyled of their dignities and cast out of the Cities His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius but which Valentinian which Theodosius where this Epistle is to be found he is silent and leaveth us if it were worth the labour to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay But the truth is there is nothing in it which concerneth this question nothing which we deny The words as they be alleged by him are these All antiquity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome Our question is concerning the Politicall Principality of Kings and Emperours and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power Or at least such a Supremacy of single sovereign monarchichall Power as they require about which our controversie now is A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coyfe and Bench and in some circumstantiall respects a kinde of eminency or principality of Power but no single supremacy so as to be able to crosse their votes with a non obstante Such a supremacy of sovereing single universall power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know either at Rome or elsewhere The Bishops of Rome were so farre from having power over generall Councells that they had no single power over their fellow Patriarchs So farre from having power over Emperours that they have been delegated by Emperours as their Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes have been convened before Emperors and deposed by Emperors Primitive Bishops use to stile Popes their brethren their collegues their fellows but never Ecclesiasticall Princes If he mean the second Valentinian his authority weighs nothing he was a young Novice mis-led by his Arrian Mother a wilfull ill-advised woman If he mean another Valentinian I shall shew him that he exercised this politicall Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall affaies it may be to the questioning of his Prince of Priests His third witness is Theodosius the younger in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus his words are these It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiasticall matters Yet he did meddle with Ecclesticall matters This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures as if himself had been a Bishop This is that Theodosius which made this following Law We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius or obey his wicked Doctrine if they be Bishops be cast out of the holy Churches but if Lay men anathematized This is that Theodosius that convocated the generall Councell of Ephesus by his Authority Royall and sent Candidianus thither to be his Deputy among other things set diligenter inspiceret c. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops so see that no dissensions did arise among them to disturbe the consultations of Synods and to represse them likewise otherwise he might as well have staid at home Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus sed eae lege c. We command Candidianus to goe to this holy Synod but upon this condition that he should have nothing to doe with questions and controversies which concern Doctrines of faith for it is unlawfull for one not registred in the catalogue of Bishops to thrust himself into ecclesiasticall affairs and consultations This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperour to dispute in the Councell about Theologicall questions which it is probable he did not understanding nor to overawe the Bishops or controlle their votes We are of the same minde with Theodosius and say as much as he that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theologicall questions And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Dominions yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads but upon mature advise of free Synods of Ecclesiasticall persons who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs All men know that Candidianus could have no decisive voice in a generall Councell So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keyes of the Church either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order We confesse that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops yet the last Appeal may be to the King We say there are many things which Kings cannot doe in their own persons and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royall authority His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder It is not lawfull for me who am of the People to search curiously such matters let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please The case was this Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire Valens was an Arrian Valentinian an orthodox Christian yet so as he troubled not those who were of a contrary Opinion He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome the orthodox Bishops about the Hellespont and in Bythinia sent their Depuities unto him to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Councell for the establishment of the right Faith wherein they acknowledged him
the politicall Head of the Church It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in so sublime a question concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in this exigence of affairs being in his voyage in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor who was an Arrian and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father whose Subjects these Bishops were as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given then that he did give Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes yet not without good advise especially in such high points of Faith as that was and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods and Bishops The same method is observed by us at this day The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases but leave all to Priests No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit Which our Highnesse hath commanded to be Preached every where This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the covetousnesse of the Clergy which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of not against the Emperors who made the Law but against the Clergy who deserved it In the Code we finde Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian as that to Florianus That a Bishop rebaptizing one who had been formerly Baptized out of ignorance of the Law should be deprived of his Bishoprick It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit speaketh that in Occidentem profectus c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine and after some debates they did chuse Saint Ambrose Some may say if it was his right why did he not chuse him himself I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one as knowing his right and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time jubet Ambrosium extemplo initiari mysteriis Episcopum ordinari The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries and to be ordeined Bishop Neither was this the case of Constantine or Theodosius or Valentinian alone Socrates writes more generally That from Constantines time when the Emperors became Christians Ecclesiasticall affaires seemed to depend upon their beck His fifth witnesse is Basilius Basilius Emperor in the seventh Synod speaketh thus to the Laity He is mistaken Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod but Constantine and Irene but it is true that in the time of the 8 th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity The case is this one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Orientall Church into great dangers whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words Nullo modo nobis licet c. It is no way lawfull for us Laymen to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes nor at all to resist the whole Church and oppose an universall Synod For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs Bishops and Priests Basilius was in the right It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as Bâ—shops doe that is to say to have decisive Voices or to meddle above their capacities much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels or to vie reason for reason with them The Bishops form of subscription was this Ego B. definiens subscripsâ— I B. have subscribed to this as my definition The Laymans form was this Ego L. consentiens subscripsâ— I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it There is a great difference between defining and consenting But as Kings are never minors because they are presumed to hâ—ve a wise Councel so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay-men who have a learned Councel of Ecclesiasticall persons to direct them All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part which only is in question between us Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments His sixth witnesse is Charles the great Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wilihaâ—e by command of the high Bishop and universall Pope Adrian c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spirituall matters It is a great degree of confidence to dare to cite Charles the great to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires To cite him who convocated Councels yeerly by his own Authority and reformed the Church Who sate himself in Synods not only as a hearer but as a Judg that is with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel Auditor Arbiter adfui and made Ecclesiasticall Decrees in his own name discernimus Deo donante decrevimus Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme which was then a place but newly conquered by himself and newly converted but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self To whom this very Pope Adrian whom he citeth with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne release and acquit for ever all their claim right and interest in the election of succeeding Popes The case cited was this Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts and desired much their conversion finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno constiâ—uit Episcopatu He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure Episcopalem constituimus Cathedram and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit extat privilegium eidem Ecclesiae a memorato Rege Collatum He endowed the Churches and commanded the inhabitants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them hoc nostro Majestaâ—is
the Pope Doth any man think that our Ancestors were so simple as to question whether the Body be above the Head or to hope that the Pope would concurre willingly to his own deposition This we know for certain that the Councell of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did Decree themselves to be a lawfull complete generall Councell superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures And deposed three Popes at a time And their acts were confirmed in the Councell of Basile To this Decree of the Councell of Constance he giveth two answers First That it is probable that the Councell meant only of doubtfull Popes But I did take away this answer in the vindication two waies First because it is contrary to the text The words of the Councell are these the Pope that is a Pope truely elected and lawfully admitted It is uncertain whether a doubtfull Pope be Pope or no is subject to a generall Councel that is a generall Councel without the presence or concurrence of the Pope such as the Councel of Constance was As well in matter of faith as of manners This is more then doubtfull titles so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed So a Councell may correct the Pope and if they please continue him or if they finde him incorrigible depose him Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles but for faults in faith or manners Neither can they be said to be deposed who are only declared to have been usurpers Secondly I confuted this answer by the execution of the Decree The Councell did not only declare who was the right Pope which is a judiciary act and may be done by an Inferior towards his Superior but they turned out three Popes together whereof one without controversie was the right Pope And so made right to be no right for the publick good of the Church which is a badge of sovereign and legislative Authority His second answer is That this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Martine the fifth This answer was likewise taken away in the vindication First because the Popes confirmation is but a novelty never practised in the ancient Church and signifieth nothing The Pope and his Legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their Legates did And that was all Secondly because Pope Martines title to the Papacy did depend meerly upon the Authority of the Decree If this Decree were not a lawfull Decree of a lawfull generall Councell and such a Councell as had power to depose the former Pope then Pope Martine was no Pope but an usurper and then his confirmation signified nothing also in that respect Last I shewed that it was conciliarly made And what the word conciliarly there signifieth out of the Acts of the Councell And that passage was not intended for a confirmation but an occasionall Speech after the end of the Councell after the Fathers were dismissed in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope by the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania about a seditious Book which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the publick Acts of the Session the Pope answered that he approved what had been conciliarly done To all this he answereth nothing but that the word conciliariter or conciliarly signifieth rather the manner of a Councel then of a Councell Let it be so Is not the decreeing of any thing publickly in the Session the manner of the Councels Acting The Duputies of the Nations were like a Committee of Parliament who have no power to Decree though they be a Committe of the whole House but only to prepare things for the House Now suppose the King at the close of the Parliament being requested to confirm some Acts of a Committe should use the very same expression which Martine the fifth did That he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that Parliament Parliamentariter or Parliamentarily Doth not this evidently confirm all the Acts and conclusions of the Parliament Or what can this in reason exclude but only the Acts of the Committees To say as R. C. saith That he confirmeth only those Acts which were done with due liberation is as much as to say that he confirmeth just nothing at all How shall it be known or who shall be Judg what was done with due deliberation and what was not Neither doth it weigh any thing at all to say as he doth that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations without adding conciliariter for first it is a rule in Law that abundans non vitiat A word or two too much doe no hurt Secondly the Deputies of the Nations did sit and Act by the Authority of the Councell and consequently their Acts were mediatly and in some sort the Acts of the Councel Lastly whether the Decree of the Councel were confirmed or not to me seemeth all one The end of Convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those respective Churches from which they are sent and to witnesse the received belief We see by their Votes what was the received opinion of the Occidentall Church And we see otherwise suffiâ—ently what was the received opinion of the Eastern Southern and Northern Churches So as the Roman Court will not be able to finde one nationall Church of that age throughout the World to maintain their exorbitant claimes To my fourth argument drawn from the Popes challenge of all Episcopall Jurisdiction and consequently the breaking of all the lines of Apostolicall Succession except his own and to my two additionall arguments concerning the infallibility of the Popes judgment and his power over Princes he answereth nothing but that they are not defined by the Roman Church and therefore cannot be a cause of departing from her communion Neither have I indevoured to charge the crime of Schism upon the Roman Church in generall but upon the Roman Court and the violent propugners thereof whose Tenets these are I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendor of an Apostolicall Church and the principall Protropatriarchate and its beginning of unity Notwithstanding the weaknesse of his answers yet he laies down this for a conclusion That whatsoever I now pretend our separation was schismatically begun And thence inferres upon a ground brought by me Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tract is temporis non convalescit That it is schismaticall still First I denie his ground the separation was not made by us but by them what we did was not schismaticall but just and necessary Secondly his inference is grossely mistaken and the rule which I brought altogether misapplyed That which was invalid from the beginning cannot become valid prescription or tract of time but it may become valid by subsequent Acts of Parties
all fundamentals is not sufficient to salvation unless other points of Faith be imposed or obtruded upon all men whether they be revealed or not revealed to them And this had been directly contrary to the plain Decree of the general Councel of Ephesus That no new Creeds nor new points of faith should be imposed upon Christians more then the Creed then received His second objection is this though there were such fundamentals yet seeing Protestant confess they know not which they are one cannot know by them who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church I doe not blame either Protestants or others especially private and particular persons if they be very tender in setting down precisely what points of faith are absolutely necessary to salvation the rather because it is a curious needless and unprofitable salvation Since the blesed Apostles have been so provident for the Church as to deposite and commit to the custody thereof the Creed as a perfect Rule and Canon of Faith which comprehendeth all doctrinall points which are absolutely necessary for all Christians to salvation it were great folly and ingratitude in us to wrangle about circumstances or about some substantiall points of lesser concernment whether they be so necessary as others This is sufficient to let us know who hold so much as is necessary to a true Church in point of faith even all those Churches which hold the Apostles Creed as it is expounded in the four first generall Councels His third and last objection followeth All points of faith sufficiently proposed are essentiall and fundamentall nor can any such point be disbeleeved without infidelity and giving the lie to God as Protestants sometimes confess If by sufficient proposall he understand the proposall of the Church of Rome I deny both parts of his assertion Many things may be proposed by the Church of Rome which are neither fundamentall truths nor inferior truths but errors which may be disbeleeved without either infidelity or sin Other men are no more satisfied that there is such an infallible proponent then they satisfie one another what this infallible proponent is If either a man be not assured that there is an infallible proponent or be not assured who this infallible proponent is the proposition may be disbeleeved without giving God the lie But if by sufficient proposall he understand Gods actuall revelation of the truth and the conviction of the conscience then this third objection is like the first partly true and party false The later part of it is true that whatsoever is convinced that God hath revealed any thing and doth not beleeve it giveth God the lie and this the Protestants doe alwaies affirm But the former part of it is still false All truths that are revealed are not therefore presently fundamentalls or essentialls of faith no more then it is a fundamentall point of faith that Saint Paul had a Cloak That which was once an essentiall part of the Christian faith is alwaies an essentiall part of the Christian faith that which was once no essentiall is never an essentiall How is that an essentiall part of saving faith whithout which Christians may ordinarily be saved But many inferior truths are revealed to particular persons without the actuall knowledge whereof many others have been saved and they themselves might have been saved though those truths had never been proposed or revealed to them Those things which may adesse or abesse be present or absent known or not known beleeved or not beleeved without the destruction of saving faith are no essentialls of saving faith In a word some things are necessary to be beleeved when they are known only because they are revealed otherwise conducing little or it may be nothing to salvation Some other things are necessary to be beleeved not only because they are revealed but because beleef of them is appointed by God a necessary means of salvation These are those are not essentialls or fundamentalls of saving faith Another means of reunion proposed by me in the vindication was the reduction of the Bishop of Rome from his universality of soveregin Jurisdiction jure divino to his exordium unitatis and to have his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers which was the sense of the Councels of Constance and Basile Against this he pleadeth first That ancient Popes practised or challenged Episcopall or pastorall Authority over all Christians jure divino in greater Ecclesiasticall causes And for the proof thereof referreth us to Bellarmine To which I answer first that the Pastors of Apostolicall Churches had ever great Authority among all Christians and great influence upon the Church as honorable Arbitrators and faithfull Depositaries of the Genuine Apostolicall tradition but none of them ever exercised sovereign Jurisdict ion over over all Christians Secondly I answer that the Epistles of many of those ancient Popes upon which their claim of universall Sovereignty jure divino is principally grounded are confessed by themselves to be counterfeits Thirdly I answer that ancient Popes in their genuine Writings doe not claim nor did practise monarchicall Power over the catholick Church much less did they claim it jure divino but what Powet they held they held by prescription and by the Canons of the Fathers who granted sundry priviledges to the Church of Rome in honor to the memory of St. Peter and the Imperiall City of Rome And some of those ancient Popes have challenged their Authority from the Councell of Nice though without ground which they would never have done if they had held it jure divino And for answer to Bellarmine whom he only mentioneth in generall I referre him to Doctor Field In the next place he citeth Saint Heirome that Christ made one Head among the twelve to avoid Schism And how much more necessary faith R. C. is such a Head in the universall Church It was discreetly done of him to omit the words going immediately before in St. Hierosme But thou saiest the Church is founded upon St. Peter The same is done in another place upon all the Apostles they all receive the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all I have shewed him formerly in answer to this place that in a body endowed with power as the Church is an Headship of Order alone is a sufficient remedy against Schism His how much more should be how much less a single person is more capable of the government of a small society then of the whole world After this he citeth Melanchon As there are some Bishops who govern diverse Churches the Bishop of Rome governeth all Bishops and this Canonicall policy I think no-wise man doth disallow I cannot in present procure that century of Theologicall Epistles but I have perused Melancthons Epistles published by Casper Pucerus wherein I finde no such Epistle I examine not whether this Epistle by him cited be genuine or
make that proposition hereticall in it self which was not ever hereticall nor increase the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith either in number or substance What I said is undeniable true First in it self That is in its own nature without any reference to the authority of a Councel And necessary Articles of the Christian Faith that is absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians If the proposition were hereticall in it self then they that held it before the Councel were Hereticks as well as they who hold it after the Councel And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith without the actuall belief whereof Christians could never be saved This is sufficient to answer his objection But for the Readers satisfaction I adde moreover that the Romanists believe a generall Councel not only to be fallible without the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope whose priviledge and prerogative the most of them doe make the fole ground of the Churches infallibility but also without his concurrenee to have often erred actually But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope they make the determination of a generall Councel to be infallible On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope but the contrary After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave spoiled him of his pontificall Attire cut off his two Fingers and cast his body into Tybur it became an usuall thing with the following Popes either to enfringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors Neither was this act of Stephen an errour meerly in matter of fact but principally in matter of Faith that the Episcopall character is deleble We know no such confirmation neâ—dfull nor of any more force then the single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolicall Church And therefore we give the same priviledges to a Councell unconfirmed which they acknowledge to be fallible and to a Councell confirmed by the Pope We have no assurance that all generall Councells were and ever shall be so prudently mesnaged and their proceedings allwaies so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to beleeve under pain of damnation If R C. be not of my mind others of his own Church have been and are at this day When I forbear to cite because I presume it will not be denyed In summe I know no such virtuall Church as they fancy Antiquity never knew it I owe obedience at least of acquiescence to the representative Church and I resolve for ever to adhere to the best of my understanding to the united Communion of the whole essentiall Church which I beleeve to be so far infallable as is necessary for atteining that end for which Christ bestowed this priviledge that is salvation Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice or subterfuge to decline the authority of generall Councells I know none we need to fear And I doe freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly generall which he shall produce in this question As for occidentall Councels they are farre from being generall My other supposed error is that I say That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a generall Councell yet he ought to be silent and possess his soul in patience That is untill God give another opportunity and another Councell sit wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary This he saith is to binde men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in matter of Religion and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth and brings them within the compass of Saint Pauls Woe woe be unto me if I evangelise not Excellent Doctrine and may well serve for a part of the Rebells Catechism Because my Superior is not infallible if I cannot assent unto him must I needs oppose him publickly or otherwise be guilty of Hypocrisie and Dissimulation If he shall think fit in discretion to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth If he shall by his authority suspend a particular Pastor from the exercise of his pastorall Office must he needs preach in defiance of him or else be guilty of St. Pauls Woe Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gospell I desire him to consult with Bellarmine All Catholicks doe agree that if the Pope alone or the Pope with a particular Councell doe determine any controversie in Religion whether he can erre or whether he can not erre he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians May not I observe that duty to a generall Councell which all Roman Catholicks doe pay to the Pope or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience Certainly these things were not well weighed Where I say that by the Church of England in this question I understand that Church which was derived by lineall succession from Brittish English Scotish Bishops by mixt ordination as it was legally established in the daies of Edward the sixth and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution to let us see what an habit of alteration is he excepts against every word of this First against the lineall succession because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone This is an argument from the Staffe to the Corner I speak of a succession of holy Orders and he of a succession of Opinions And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom he will be found at a default here also Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we doe In the next place he excepts against mixt Ordination as partly Papisticall partly Protestanticall He erres the whole Heavens breadth from my meaning Before Austin preached to the Saxons there were in Britain ancient British Bishops and ancient Scotish Bishops who had their severall lines of succession to which Austin added English Bishops and so made a third succession These three were distinct at first but afterwards in tract of time they came to be mixed and united into one succession So as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British Scotish and English Bishops This is the great Bug-bear of mixt Ordination He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child He mistakes Kings are never Children nor Minors whilest they have good Tutors and good Councellers was he more a Child than King Iehoash and yet the Church was reformed during his minority This was no Childish Act thanks to Iehoiada a good Uncle and Protector He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edwards daies which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops whereof divers were cast in Prison for not
Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
persons sent into Ireland by the Pope that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesties Dominions was to prepare the Subjects to assist forrein invaders to excite the People to Rebellion and to deprive her Majesty of her Crown and dignity and life it self Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some Though many of them who were bred in those Seminaries were Pensioners of the Pope the King of Spain or the Duke of Guise all which at that time were in open hostility with the Crown of England Is it not lawfull to forbid Subjects to be bred in an enemies Countrie or to turn their Pensioners or if they doe goe out of themselves to exclude them from their native Soyle Yet in other places and it may be in those Colleges also many others preserved their principles of loyalty At the same time Doctor Bishopp one of the Roman communion writ a Book to prove that the constitution obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran Councell upon which the Popes authority of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their allegiance is founded was not decreed by the Fathers nor ever admitted in England but was a private Decree of Pope Innocent the third If all his Fellowes had held the same moderation there had been no need of such Lawes But it is a remediless misery of Societies that when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and the Innocent publick Justice which seeks to prevent the common danger looks upon the whole Society with one eie And if any innocent persons suffer they must not blame the Law but their own Fellowes who gave just occasion for the making of such severe Lawes So we see how many things here were of their own election First they were warned by an Edict not to study in those Seminaries which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in publick hostility with the Crown of England Nevertheless they would not doe it They were commannded to return home by a prefixed time They would not doe it This alone had been sufficient to punish them as Traitors by the ancient lawes of the Land Yet further they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England nor to exercise their priestly Functions there Yet they did it And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Councel That he was come over and would not desist untill he had either turned them to be Roman Catholicks or died upon their Lances To conclude if we view the particular Lawes we shall finde that they looked more upon the Court of Rome then the Church of Rome The Act and Oath of Supremacy were framed in the daies of Henry the eighth by Roman Catholicks themselves The first penall Lawes of this nature that I finde made by Queen Elizabeth were in the sixth year of her reign against those who should maintain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing or refuse the Oath of â—upremay twice The second in the fourteenth year of her reign against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an Heretick Schismatick or Infidell And likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome to reconcile any of the Queens Subjects or Indulgences or Agnus Dei or the like Yet was this never put in execution for six years untill the execution of it was extorted All this either concerned the Court of Rome or such Acts as were not necessary to a Roman Catholick for the injoyment of his conscience A man might beleeve freely what his conscience dictated to him or practise his own religion so he prated not too much nor medled with others Afterwards in the twenty third year of her reign issued out the Proclamation against the English Seminaries wherein her Subjects were bred Pensioners to the enemies of her Crown The last Lawes of this kinde were made in the twenty fourth year of her â—eign against those who should diswade English Subjects from their obedience to their Prince or from the Religion established or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome In all these Lawes though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions and treasons and deprivations and extremest necessity there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen Maryes Priest or any that were ordained within the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving so they were not over busie and medled with others These might have sufficed or officiating to Roman Catholicks if the Pope had pleased But he preferred his own ends before their safty Non his juvenius orta parentibus infecit aequor sanguine These were not principled for his purpose nor of that temper that his affaires required And therefore he erected new Seminaries and placed new Readers according to his own minde And in conclusion forced the Queen to use necessary remedies so save her selfe and the Kingdome These things being premised it will not be difficult to answer to all which R. C. saith First he saith that in all the pretended cases of treason there is no election but of matters of Religion and that they suffer meerly for matters of Religion without any shew of true Treason I confess that Treason is complicated with Religion in it But I deny that they suffer meerly for Religion any more then he that poisoned an Emperour or a Prior in the Sacrament could have been said to suffer for administring the Sacrament and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament or then he who out of blinde obedience to his Superior kills a man can be said to suffer death for his conscience or he who being infected with the Plague and seeking to infect others if he be shot dead in the attempt can be said to suffer for his sickness In so many designs to take away the Queens life in so many rebellions in so many seditious tenets in so many traitorous books and lastly in adhering unto and turning Pensioner to a publick professed Enemy of their Prince and native Country can he see no treason nothing but matters of Religion If he cannot or will not yet they who were more nearly concerned in it had reason to look better about them He asks how I can tearm that politicall Supremacy which is Supremacy in all causes to wit Ecclesiasticall or Religious I answer very well As the King is the Keeper of both Tables to see that every one of his Subjects doe his duty in his place whether Clergy-man or Lay-man and to inflâ—ct politicall punishment upon them who are delinquent And where he saith that Queen Elizabeth challenged more he doth her wrong She Challenged no more And moreover in her first Parliament tooke order to have the head of the English Church left out of her Title He demands further whether Nero by the same right might not have condemned St. Peter and St. Paul of Treason for coming to Rome with forbidden Orders and seeking to seduce his Subjects from the
factious persons but by two or three Kings successively and by Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury a Roman with the flower of the Clergy and the whole Councel of the English He proceedeth they never disliked that Profession of Saint Austins Fellowes that the See Apostolick had sent them to preach in Britanny as she is accustomed to doe in all the World First why should they dislike it they had no reason for it No good Christian can dislike the Husbandmans sowing of Wheat but every good Christian doth dislike the envious mans supersemination or sowing of Tares above the Wheat Or if there had been reason how could they dislike that which in probability they did not know The Letter out of which these words are cited was not written to the English Kings but to the Scotish Bishops by Laurentius Successor to Austin in the See of Canterbury and Melitus of London and Iustus of Rotchester which three were all the Bishâ—ps of the Roman Communion that were at that day in Britain But if perchance he imagine that the Popes sending Preachers into Britain doth either argue an ancient or acquire a subsequent Jurisdiction over Britain he erres doubly first they did nothing without the Kings licence for matter of fact they produced no Papall mandates which had been in vain to a Pagan King At their first arrivall the King commanded them to abide in the Isle of Thanet untill his further pleasure was known They did so Afterwards they were called in by his command he gave them an express licence to preach to his Subjects and after his own conversion majorem praedicandi licentiam a further and larger licence So the conversion of Kent was by the Popes endeavoures and the Kings authority Secondly for matter of right Conversion gives no just title to Jurisdiction How many Countries have been converted to the Christian Faith by the Britans and English over which they never pretended any authority It followeth they never disliked That Saint Gregory should subject all the Priests of Britain under Saint Austin and give him power to erect two Archiepiscopall Sees and twelve Episcopall Sees under each of them Whom could Ethelbert being himself a Novice in Christianity better trust with the disposing of Ecclesiasticall Affaires in his Kingdome then those who had been his Converters But either Saint Gregory in his projects or rather Austin in his informations did mightily over-shoot themselves for the twentieth part of Britain was not in Ethelberts power And all the other Saxon Kings were Pagans at that time We have seen that after the death of Austin and Gregory there were still but one Archbishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion throughout the Britannick Islands The British and Scotish Bishops were many but they renounced all Communion with Rome The British Bishops professed plainly to Austin himself in their Synod that they would not acknowledge him for their Archbishop And the Scotish Bishops did so much abhorre from the Communion of the Bishops of the Roman Communion that as themselves complained Dagamus one of the Scotish Bishops refused to eat with them or to lodge with them in the same Inne And yet he tells us in great earnest that they never disliked it He addeth they never disliked that Saint Melit should bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod to be observed of the Church of England It may be so But whether it was so or not whether they liked them or disliked them whether they received them or rejected them Venerable Bede who is his Author speaketh not a word This is not proving but presuming And why might they not receive them if they found them to be equall and beneficiall non propter authoritatem Legislatoris sed propter aequitatem Legis not for the authority of the Roman Synod but for the equity of their Decrees And what were their Decrees Ordinationes de vita quiete Monachorum Orders for the good conversation and quiet of Monks A matter of no great importance but great or small the Decrees of the Roman Synod were of no force in England unless they were received by the King and Kingdome and if they were received by the King and Kingdome then they were naturalised and made the Lawes of England not of Pope Boniface an usurping and if we may trust Saint Gregory his Predecessors an Antichristian Prelate They willingly admitted a Bishop of Canterbury sent to them and chosen by the Pope Why should they not admit him seeing it was their own desire and request to the Bishop of Rome in respect of the great scarcity of Scholars then in England to send them one as appeareth by the very letter of Vitalianus hominem denique docibilem in omnibus ornatum Antistitem secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem minime valuimus nunc reperire We could not finde for the present such a complete Prelate as your letters require and by the reception of the King quâ—d cum Nuncii certò narrassent Regi Egberto adesse Episcopum quem petierant a Romano Antistite when King Egbert had certain notice that the Bishop Theodore was come whom they had desired of the Roman Prelate So he was not obtruded upon them against their wills which was the case of patronage between us and them They acknowledged that Saint Peter was the speciall Porter of Heaven whom they would obey in all things I understand not why he urgeth this except it be to expose the simplicity of those times to dirision The case was this there was a disputation between Coleman and Wilfrid about the observation of Easter Coleman pleaded a tradition from Saint Iohn upon whose bosom Christ leaned delivered to them by Columba their first Converter Wilfrid pleaded a different tradition from St. Peter to whom Christ gave the Keies of the Kingdome of Heaven The King demanded whether that which was said of Saint Peter was true They acknowledged it was And whether any thing of like nature was said to Saint Columb They said no. Thereupon the King concluded Hic est Ostiarius ille cui ego contradicere nolo c. ne forte me adveniente ad fores Regni Coelorum non sit quireseret averso illo qui Claves tenere probatur This is the Porter whom I will not contradict least peradventure when I come to the gates of Heaven there be none to open unto me having made him averse to me who is proved to keepe the Keies No man can be so simple as to beleeve that there are Gates and Keies and Porters in Heaven It were but a poor office for Saint Peter to sit Porter at the Gate whilest the rest were feasting within at the Supper of the Lamb. The Keies were given to Saint Iohn as much as to Saint Peter They publickly engraved in the front of their Churches that Saint Peter was higher in degree then Saint Paul Let them place St. Peter as high as they please
shew that the Britannick Churches were free from all forrein jurisdiction for the first six hundred yeers and so ought to continue For the clearing of which point I shewed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle but in the Apostolicall college I shewed that in the age of the Apostles and the age next succeeding the highest Order in the Church under the Apostles were nationall Protarchs or Patriarchs And by what means and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarchs came to be exalted above the rest and to obscure their fellowes But each of these within their own Patriarchates did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior As might be made clear by many instances when Athanasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope Iulius for their restitution I meddle not with the merits of the cause the Bishops of the East took the reprehension of Iulius as a contumely they called a Councell at Antioch they accused Iulius sharply and shewed that he had nothing to doe to contradict them more then they did contradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church Neither did the great Protopatriarchs challeng this independency only but other lesser Patriarchs also as Saint Cyprian When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in Africk addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickednesse or if it displease them and they fall from it they know whether to return for whereas it is decreed by us all and it is equall and just that every ones cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor which he is to govern and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitfull rashnesse But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes unlesse the authority of the African Bishops who have sentenced them already seem to a few desperate cast awaies to be inferior c. To say with Bellarmine that Saint Cyprian speaks only of the first instance is to contradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith expressely that the cause had been sentenced already in Africk Then I shewed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syllogisme Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ ought to continue free and exempted for ever notwithstanding the subsequent usurpation of any forrein Prelate or Patriarch This was clearly and irrefragably proved out of the words of the Councel it self And if the Bishop of Rome did intrude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper and can never prescribe to a legall possession according to the famous rule of the Law Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto But the Britannick Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their silence upon whom the proofe in law doth rest being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Britain or any of the Britannick Islands for the first six hundred yeares and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. years When the Popes Legate would have entred into Scotland to visite the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him to doe so alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such neither would he suffer it and therefore willed him at his own perill to forbear Secondly by priority of foundation the Britannick Church being the elder Sister and ancienter then the Roman and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning that was before there was a Roman Church Thirdly it was proved by the right of ordination and election of all our Primats For all other right of Jurisdiction doth follow or pursue the right of Ordination But it is most evident that all our British Primates or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius St. David Samson c. not only in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even untill the time of Henry the first after the eleven hundreth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth Semper tamen c. Yet alwayes untill the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England Henry the first the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. Davids And he likewise was consecrated by other Bishopâ— as his Suffragans without professing any manner of subjection to any other Church But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus the reverend and learned Abbat and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor and from the solemn Sentence or Decree of two British Synods in the point recorded by all our Historiographers who write the Acts of those times I confess he nâ—bles here and there at some odde ends of this discourse but taketh no â—â—ner of notice of the main grounds especially the two British Synods which are express in the point and the Answer of Dionâ—thus that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope or to receive Austin for their Archbishop That as for that man whom they called the Pope they oâ—â—gâ—â—t 〈◊〉 no obedience but the obedience of love that they were immediately under God subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon But let us take a view of his exceptions First he saith That Bellarmine hath not these words That Christ in saying these words As my Father sent use so send I you did endue his Apostles with all fullness of power that mortall men were capable of Neither did I cite his words but his sense as he might see by the Character but that Bellarmine said as much or more then this I will now make it good Let him speak for himself Therefore that the Apostles received theâ—r Iurisdiction immediately from Christ first the words of our Lord doe testifie John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you which place the Fathers Crysostome and Theophylact doe so expound that they say plainly that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of
Christ Yea that they received the very office and authority of Christ. He addeth out of St. Cyrill That by these words the Apostles were created Apostles and Doctors of the whole World and that we might understand that all Ecclesiasticall power is conteined in Apostolicall authority therefore Christ added as my Father sent me siquidem Pater misit Filium summa potestate praeditum Further he proveth out of Saint Cyprian That whatsoever power Christ did promise or give to St. Peter when he said to thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and feed my Sheep he did give parem potestatem an equall power to the rest of the Apostles in these words And afterwards he calleth it Iurisdictionem plenissimam a most full Iurisdiction Lay all this together that by these words he made them the Vicars of Christ and conferred upon them the very office and authority of Christ made them Apostles and Doctors of the whole World gave them all Ecclesiasticall Power an equall Power to Saint Peters and lastly a most full Jurisdiction and compare them with that which I said that by these words Christ gave them all the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall Power that mortall men were capable of And if he say not more then I did I am sure he saith no less Is mortall man capable of more then the Vicariate of the Sonne of God yea of his office and authority Can any thing be more high then that which is highest more full then that which is fullest or more universall then that which comprehends all Ecclesiasticall Power within it It had been sufficient to my purpose if he had said no more but only that it was equall to Saint Peters If it were needfull I might cite other places out of Bellarmine to make my words good Therefore the Lord left unto his Apostles by these words his own place and would that they should enjoy his authority in governing the Kingdome But Bellarmine telleth us That this is meant not in respect of themselves but in respect of all other men I know Bellarmine saith so not in this place but elsewhere But first he saith it upon his own head without any authority None of the Fathers ever taught that Saint Peter had a supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles All that they say is that he was the beginning of unity and the Head of the Apostolicall College that is in order and eminence Princeps Apostolorum as Virgill is called the Prince of Poets or Saint Paul the Head of Nations or Saint Iames the Bâ—shop of Bishops Secondly this answer is altogether impertinent The question is not between us what the Apostles were in respect of their personall actions among themselves one towards another though even this were absurd enough to say that Saint Peter had Power to suspend his fellow Apostles either in their offices or in their Persons But the question between us is what the Apostles were in respect of the government of the Christian World wherein by this distinction he granteth them all to be equall Thirdly by his leave he contradicts himself for if Saint Peter had any Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles and they had none mutually over him then it was not par Potestas an equall Power for par in parem non habet Potestatem If his Power was fuller then theirs then theirs was not plenissima Potestas If his Power was higher then theirs then theirs was not summa Potestas If there was some ecclesiasticall Power which they had not then all ecclesiasticall Power was not comprehended in Apostolicall Authority then the Power of opening and shutting is larger then the Power of binding and loosing and to feed Christ's Sheep is more then to be sent as his Father sent him all which is contrary both to the truth and to what himself hath taught us Lastly if Saint Peter had not only a primacy of Order but also a Supremacy of Power and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles then his Successors Linus and Cletus and Clemens were Superiors to Saint Iohn and he was their Subject and lived under their Jurisdiction which no reasonable Christian will easily beleeve Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris et Potestatis sed exordium ab unitate profeciscitur primatus Petro datur ut Ecclesia una monstretur If they were equall in honor and power then the primacy must be of Order That these words to thee will I give the Keyes and feed my Sheep doe include Power and Authority I grant but that they include a supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles or that they include more Power then these other words as my Father sent me so send I you I doe altogether deny I acknowledge the words of Saint Hierosme That one was chosen that an Head being constituted the occasion of Schisme might be taken away But this Head was only an Head of order And truly what Saint Hierosme saith in this place seemeth to me to have reference to the persons of the Apostles and by Schism to be understood Contention Altercation among the Apostles themselves which of them should be the greatest as Mark 9.34 To this I am induced to incline first by the word occasio he saith not as elsewhere for a remedy of Schism but to take away occasion of Schism or Contention Secondly by the words following in St. Hierosme Magister bonus qui occasioneÌ„ jur gij debuerat auferre Discipulis to take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples and in Adolescentem quem dileâ—erat saâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 videretur invidia because Peter was the eldest and Iohn the youngest our Saviour would not seem to give cause of envy against him whom he loved To take away occasion of chiding from his Disciples and not to give cause of envy against his beloved Disciple doe seem properly to respect the Apostolicall College But let this be as it will I urge no man to quit his own sense He presseth his former Argument yet further That a superiority of Order is not sufficient to take away Schisme without a superiority of Power and Authority I answer that in all Societies an Head of Order is necessary to prevent and remedy Schisme that there may be one to convocate the Society to propose Doubts to receive Votes to pronounce Sentence And if there be a judiciary Power and Authority in the body of the Society it is a sufficient remedy against Schisme As in a College Schism is as well prevented by placing the Power joyntly in the Provost and Fellowes as by giving the Provost a monarchicall Power over the Fellowes And in the Catholick Church by placing the supremacy of ecclesiasticall Power in a Councell or by placing it in a single person And thus the sovereign Power over the universall Church was ever in an oecumenicall Councel
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
Prince or Princes but a whole succession of Kings with their convocations and Parliaments proceeding according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah But he faith that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde then that he violated his conscience Neither will this uncharitable censure if it were true advantage his cause the black of a bean His conscience might make the reformation sinfull in him but not unlawfull in it self The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self depends not upon the conscience of the doer but the merit of the thing done His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders The former a great Counsellor of King Henry a contriver of the oath a propugner of the Kings Supremacy both in print and in his Sermons and a persecutor of them who opposed it For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost He had reason to say he was constrained both to hide his own shame and to flatter the Pope after his revolt whom he had so much opposed especially in the dayes of Queen Marie Otherwise he had missed the Chancellership of England and it may be had suffered as a Schismatick Yet let us hear what he faith that King Henry had a purpose to resigne the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it All this might have been and yet no intention of reconciliation Great Princes many times look one way and row another And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion or prevent a forrein warre will make no scruple to use it But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation that if he did not hear them certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus they would certainly interpret it that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves to seeke their remedy from elsewhere This was a faire intimation and they were as good as their words This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia downright for the Kings Supremacie against the Pope Lastly this is who published to the world that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point and the King alone goe against his conscience His later witness Nicholas Sanders is just such another whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry He feineth that when his death did draw nigh he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick Testimony he produceth none but his own Authority They who will not beleeve it may chuse But that which followeth spoileth the credit of his relation That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him answered that the King was wiser then all men that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration and had nothing now to fear That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bâ—shops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abhominably against his conscience as he makes this to be is not credible But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made But here is a double mistake first in the time this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made currente Rota Some intimations had been given of what was intended but the Bell was not then rung out Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement in order of time Secondly in the Subject this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine The words are these That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence untill he the King had indifferent Judges who might hear the business he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King and delivered it at Rome It was not accepted The Kings answer came not within the time limited Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence and the Separation followed So this was about the change of a Wife not of Religion before either King Henrys substraction of obedience or the Popes fulmination In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope but in no case from the Papacy which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution whereas Protestants saith he for the faults of some Popes have separated themselves both from Pope Papacy and Roman Church And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution If he had been pleased to observe it I took away this distinction before it was made shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline doe warrant a more permanent separation even untill they be reformed I doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope Papacy and Church of Rome but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another As the Pope may have his proper faults so may the Papacy so may the Church of Rome We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Roman Church In all other things we maintain communion with her We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See if he
have not separated our selves but been chased away who have only forsaken errors not Churches much lesse obstinately and least of all in essentials who would gladly be contented to winke at small faults so they would not obtrude sinfull duties upon us as a condition of their communion The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margent whose scope is far enough from going about to perswade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome for which they are cited by him Rather on the contrary if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome and allow it not the essence of a Church what doth that concern the Church of England Will he blame us for being more moderate Trust me these Authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery He telleth us That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists If ours be Religion yours is separation They may rehearse the same words indeed but neither is Saint Austins case their case nor the Donatists case our case Sometimes they crie down our Religion as a negative Religion as faulty in the defect And now they accuse us of superstition in the excesse We approve no Church with which they communicate and we doe not Doctor Field saith that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church they need not use any other Argument It is most certain we all say the same But still he confoundeth the Church that is the universall Church with a Church that is a particular Church and a metaphysically true Church with a morally true Church Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense In this Section there is nothing but crambe bis cocta a repetition of what he hath formerly said over and over of Protestants separating themselves from the whole Christian World in communion of Sacraments Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvine Doctor Potter and Master Chillingworth which have already been fully answered He saith I indeavour to prove the lawfull Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time by the testimony of publick Registers and confession of Father Oldcorne He knoweth better if he please that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeths time but in Edward the sixths time If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it The Ecclesiasticall Registers doe make their Ordination so plain that no man who will but open his eies can be in doubt of it He confesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Registers were authenticall So must every one say or think that seeth them and every one is free to see them that will But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner and judged others by himself Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholick opinions Why did he change in this more then in any of the rest Because there is no defence against a Flaile no resisting evident demonstration which doth not perswade but compell men to believe But wherefore were not these Registers shewed before King James his time They were alwaies shewed to every man that desired to see them Registers are publick Records the sight whereof can be refused to no man The Officers hand is known the Office is secured from all supposititious writings both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register and by the testimony of all others who view the Records from time to time He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not shewed Which is first publickly promulged and after that affixed to the gates of the City and of the Common-Hall and all other publick places If he could have excepted against the persons either consecraters or consecrated as that there were not such persons or not so qualified or not present at that time he had had some reason for himself But Episcopall Ordination in England was too solemn and too publick an Act to be counterfeited And moreover the Proceedings were published in print to the view of the World whilest there were very many living who were eie witnesses of the Ordination And yet by his favour if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there as there were it might have made the Ordination illegall but not invalid for which I will give him a president and a witnesse beyond exception The president is Austine the first converter of the English the witnesse Saint Gregory Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia c. And truely in the English Church wherein there is no other Bishop but thy self thou canst not ordein a Bishop otherwise then alone c. But when by the grace of God Bishops are ordeined throughout all places Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops He asketh why Bishop Jewell or Bishop Horne did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops I might even as well ask him when he citeth an authority out of Saint Austin why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject did not cite it and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing Perhaps for I can but guesse untill he cite the places Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordination Perhaps judging them to be Hereticks they thought they had lost their character which yet he himself will acknowledg to be indeleble Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants and they gave a general answer Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records or lastly perhaps or indeed without perhaps they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination in respect of the Laws of England not upon the invalidity of it as shall clearly appear in my next answer In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers Why were they not shewed saith he when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the barre What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight yeers after Now let him take one answer for all There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer and the Book of Ordination as an appendix to it to be used throughout England in the reign of Edward the sixth This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth as to the Book of Common Prayer intending but not expresly mentioning the Book of Ordination which was an appendix to it So it was restored again either expresly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer as containing the publick Prayers of the Church for that occasion or at least implicitly as being printed in the Book of
land when soever these were infringed or an attempt made to destroy them as the liberties of the Crowne and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope it was the manner to restore them or to declare them by a statute which was not operative to make or create new law but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law This I told him expressely in the vindication and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers Fitz Herbirt and my Lord Cook to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law but declarative to restore ancient law This appeareth undeniably by the statute it self That England is an Empire and that the King as head of the body politicke consisting of the spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall Iustice for all matters Here he seeth expressely that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality which is all that we assert at this day was the an e nt fundamentall law of England And lest hâ—e should accuse this Parliament of partialiâ—y I produced another that was more ancient The Crowne of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to be submitted to the Pope Here the Kings politicall Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamentall Law of the Land Let him not say that this was intended onely in temporall matters for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressely Ecclesiasticall What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more and to accuse me of impudence Secondly he saith that I bring diverse allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted or where the Pope is expressely denied the power to do such and such things Do we professe the Pope can pretend no more then his right Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted He stileth the Authorities by me produced meer Allegations yet they are as authentick Records as England doth afford But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in generall expressions of the Popes pretences and such or such things as if the controversy had been onely about an handfull of goats wool I will make bold to represent some of the Popes pretences and their declarations against them And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestours in those particulars he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question They declared that it was the custom or common law of the land ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa that no Pope might be appealed unto without the Kings licence They made a law that if any one were found bringing in the Popes letters or mandates into the kingdome let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and kingdome They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiasticall causes concerning the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church over all Ecclesiastical persons in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars nor make spiritual corporations nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary nor appropriate Churches nor to dispose Benefices by lapse nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy but the King did all these things as I shewed at large in the vindication They permitted not the Popes canon law to have any place in England further then they pleased to receive it They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishopricks and investitures of Bishops They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the Kings license They admitted no Legates from the Pope but meerly upon courtesy and if any was admitted he was to take his oath to doe nothing derogatory to the King or his Crowne If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication in England without the Kings consent or bring over the Popes bull he forfeited all his goods So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject nor dispose of an English Benefice nor send a Legate a latere orso much as an authoritative bul into England nor to reâ—eive an appeal out of England without the kings license But saith he To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not This was not meerly to limit an authority but to deny it VVhat lawfull Jurisdiction could remain to him in England who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence nor to send any Citation or sentence thither nor execute any authority over an English Subject either at Rome by himself or in England by his deputies without licence That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent Give us the same limitation which our Ancestours alwayes claimed that no forraign authority shall be exercised in England withour leave and then give the Pope as much authority as you please volenti non fit injuria consent takes away error He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him He demandeth first were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths raign Yes but it is no strange matter to explaine or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses as we see in magna Charta the statute of proviso's and many other Statutes Secondly he asketh whether we began our Religion there that is at that time when these ancient lawes were made no I have told him formerly that these statutes were onely declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdome VVe began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time before they had a Church at Rome But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion Lastly he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France Spaine Germany and Italy it self and yet they are Catholicks and hold communication with the Pope Yes there are some such laws in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English as I have shewed in the vindication And therefore the Popes friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience loyall Countries VVhat â—use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more then we in England concerns not me nor this present discourse And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section he cries out How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and
hath defined it most expresly And the words of that Councel seem to import no less that it is most manifest that the Bishop of Rome hath authority over all Councels Tanquam super omnia Consilia authoritatem habentem And for the latter opinion Bellarmine declares it to be most true quae sententia est verissima cites great Authors for it and saith that it seemeth to have been the opinion of the old Schoolmen That Bishops do derive all their Iurisdiction from the Pope as all the vertue of the members is derived from the head or as all the vertue of the branches springs from the root or as the water in the stream flowes from the fountain or as the light of the beams is from the Sun This is high enough Sect. 10. I answered that we hold communion with thrice so many Christians as they do He replyeth that if by Christians I mean those who lay claim to the name of Christ he neither denies my answer nor envies me my multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arrians Nestorians Eutychians c. without number do all usurpe the honour of this title adding that he doth most faithfully protest he doth not think I have any solid reason to refuse communion to the worst of them O God how is it possible that prejudice and partiality or an habit of alteration should make Christians and Pastours of Christs flock to swerve so far not only from truth and charity but from all candour and ingenuity Wherein can he or all the world charge the Church of England or the Church of Greece or indeed any of the Easterne Southerne or Northerne Christians with any of these Heresies It is true some few Easterne Christians in comparison of those innumerable multitudes are called Nestorians and some others by reason of some unusual expressions suspected of Eutychianisme but both most wrongfully Is this the requital that he makes to so many of these poor Christians for maintaining their Religion inviolated so many ages under Mahumetan Princes Yet Michael the Archangel when he disputed with the devil about the body of Moses durst not bring a â—ailing accusation against him but said the Lord rebuke thee The best is we are either wheat or chaff of the Lords ffoare but their tongues must not winnow us Manes a mad-man as his name signifies feigned himself to be Christ chose twelve Apostles and sent them abroad to preach his errours whose disciples were called Manichees they made two Gods one of good called light another of evil called darkness which evil God did make impure creatures of the more faeeulent parts of the matter he created the world he made the old testament Hereupon they held flesh and wine to be impure and marriage to be unlawful and used execrable purifications of the creatures They taught that the soul was the substance of God that war was unlawful that bruite beasts had as much reason as men that Christ was not true man nor came out of the wombe of the Virgin but was a phantasme that Iohn Baptist was damned for doubting of Christ that there was no last Judgement that sins were inevitable many of which errours they sucked from the Gnosticks and Carpocratians The Nestorians divided the person of Christ and the Eutychians confounded his natures what is this to us or any of those Churches which we defend we accurse all their errors If he be not more careful in making his charge he will soon forfeit the stock of his credit He ingageth himself that if I can shew him but one Church which never changed the Doctrine which their Fathers taught them as received from the Apostles which is not in communion with the Roman Church he will be of that ones communion I wish he may make good his word I shew him not only one but all the Easterne Southerne Northerne and I hope Westerne Churches who never changed their Creed which comprehends all these necessary points of saving truth which they received from their Ancestors by an uninterrupted Line of Succession from the Apostles As for Opinions or Truths of an inferiour nature there is no Church of them all that hath changed more from their Ancestours even in these very controversies that are between them and us then the Church of Rome For the clear proof whereof I refer him to Doctor Fields appendix to his third book of the Church the first part of his appendix to four books at the latter end of the first Chapter I pleaded that the Councell of Trent was not general I had reason The conditions of a generall councell recited by Bellarmine are that the summons be generall there none were summoned but onely out of the western Church That the four Protopatriarchs be present by themselves or their deputies there was not one of them present That some be present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces there were none out â—f three parts of foure of the Christian world He saith the other Patriarchs were Hereticks Though it were true yet until they were lawfully heard condemned in a general Councel or refused to come to their triall and were condemned for their obstinacy they ought to have been summoned yea of all others they especially ought to have been summoned But where were they heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Councel or person that had Jurisdiction over them Others of his fellows will be contented to accuse them of Schisme and not pronounce them condemned hereticks Guido the Carmelite is over partiall and tâ—merarious in accusing them without ground as some of his owne party do confesse and vindicate them And Alphonsus á castro taketh his information upon trust from him The plaine truth is their onely crime is that they will not submit to the Popes spirituall Monarchy and so were no fit company for an Italian Councell His demand Is not a Parliament the generall representative of the nation unlesse every Lord though a knowne and condemned Rebell be summoned or unlesse every member that hath a right to sit there be present is altogether impertinent Neither hath the Pope that power over a generall Councell that the king hath over the Parliament Neither are the Protopatriarchs knowne condemned Rebels Neither is this the case whether the necessary or neglective absence of some particular members but whether the absence of whole Provinces and the much greater part of the Provinces of Christendome for want of due summons do disable a Councell from being a generall representative of the whole Christian world And as it is impertinent so it makes altogether against himselfe Never was there a session of a nationall Parliament in England wherein so few members were present as were in the pretended generall Councell of Trent at the deciding of the most weighty controversy concerning the rule of Faith Never was there lawfull Parliament in England wherein there were more Knights and Burgesses out of one Province then out of all the rest of