the Prejudice of the Decrees of Generall Councells or the Privileges of the French Church Then he must give no Dispensarions against the Canons or Contrary to those Privileges Thus we have viewed all the reall differences between the Church of Rome and us concerning Papall power which our Lawes take notice of There are some other petâ—y Abuses which we complain of but they may be all referred to one of these four heads The Patronage of the Church of England The Legislative The Judicary and Dispensative powers Other differences are but the Opinions of particular Persons But where no Law is there is no Transgression Wee have seen evidently that Henry the eighth did cast no Branch of Papall power out of England but that which was diametrally repugnant to the Ancient Lawes of the Land made in the Reign of Henry the fourth Richard the second Edward the third Edward the first Henry the third Henry the second And these Lawes ever of Force in England never repealed no not so much as in Queen Maryes time when all the Lawes of Henry the eighâ—h and Edward the sixth which concerned the Bishop of Rome were repealed So that I professe clearly I doe not see what advantage Henry the eighth could make of his own Lawes which he might not have made of those ancieÌ„t lawes except onely a gawdy title of Head of the English Church which survived him not long and the Tenths and first fruits of the Clergy which was so late an usurpation of the Pope that it was not in the nature of things wheÌ„ those ancient lawes were made And since I have mentioned the Novelty of that upstart Vsurpation give me leave to let you see how it was welcommed into England whilest it was but yet hatching with the shell upon the Head of it By a Law of Henry the fourth about an Hundred yeares before Henry the eyghth so late this Mushrom began to sprout up For the grievous Complaints made to the King by his Commons in Parliament of the horrible Mischiefs and Damnable Custome which is introduced of new in the Church of Rome that none could have Provision of an Archbishoprick untill he had compounded with the Popes Chamber to pay great excessive summes of money as well for the First fruits as other lesser Fees and Perquisites c The King ordeineth in Parliament as well to the Honour of God as to eschew the Dammage of the Realm and perill of soules That whosoever shall pay such summes should forfeit all they had or as much as they might forfeit Wherein are Henry the eights Lawes more bitter against the Bishop of Rome or more severe then this is To conclude we have seen the precise time when all these Weeds did first begin to peep out of the earth The very first Introduction to the intended Pageant was the spoiling of Christian Kings of the Patronage of the Church which Bellarmine confesseth that they held Per non breve tempus For a long time A long time indeed so long as there had been Christian Princes in the world from Constantine the Great to Henry the fourth in the Empire and yet longer with us in Brittaine from King Lucius to Henry the First The Clergy of Liege say Nimium effluxit tempus quo haeâ— consuetudo incepit e. It is too long since this Custome of swearing fidelity to Princes did begin Aud under this Custome Holy and Reverend Bishops have yielded up their soules to God giving to Caesar that which was Caesars and to God that which was Gods But theÌ„ rose up Pope Hildebrand otherwise called Gregory the seventh Fortissimus Ecclesiae Dei Vindex The most undaunted Vindicator of the Church of God Who feared not to revoke and defend the old Holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes With this accordeth the Church of Liege Hildehran dus Papa Author hujus Novelli Schismatis primus Levavit Sacerdotalem Lanceam contra Diadema Regni c. Pope Hildebrand the author of this new Schisme first lift up his Episcopall Lance against the Royall diadeÌ„ And a little after Si utriusque Legis totam Bibliothecam c. If I turn over the whole Library of the old and new Law and all the ancient Expositors thereof I shall not find an Example of this Apostolicall precept onely Pope Hildebrand perfected the Sacred Canons when he Commanded Maud the Marchionesse to subdue Henry the Emperour for remission of her Sinnes I take no exceptions to the person of Pope Hildebrand others have done it sufficiently Whether the Title of Antichrist was fastened upon him justly or injustly I regard not Yet it was in the time of this Hildebrand and Paschalis his Successor that the Arch-bishop of Florence affirmed by revelatioÌ„ for he protested that he knew it most certainly that Antichrist was to be revealed in that age And about this time the Waldenses of whom St. Bernard saith that if we inquire into their Faith nothing was more Christian if into their Conversation nothing was more irreprehensible made their Secession from the Bishop of Rome And not long after in the yeare 1120. published a Booke to the world that the great Antichrist was come That the present Governers of the Roman Church armed with both Powers Secular and Spirituall who under the specious Name of the Spouse of Christ did oppose the right way of Salvation were Antichrist But I cannot but wonder what are those old holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes which Bellarmine mentioneth Those Institutions of the Holy Fathers which Hildebrand himself professeth to follow Sanctorum Patrum instituta sequenâ—es Why doe they mention what they are not able to produce or pretend what they never can perform Bellarmin hath named but one poore counterfeit Canon without Antiquity without Authority without Vse without Truth If Mr. Serjeant be able to help him with a recruit it would come very seasonably for without some such helps his pretended Institutions of the Fathers will be condemned for his own Innovations and for arrant Vsurpations and the Guilt of Schism will fall upon the Roman Court. Sect. I. Cap. IX But I expect it should be objected that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church the Legislative the Iudiciary the Dispensative power of Popes there are two other Statutes made by Henry the eighth The one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome The other an Act for establishing the Kings Succession in the Crown wherein there is an Oath that the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any Iurisdiction or Authority in this Realm And that it is declared in the 37. Article of our Church that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Kingdome of England And in the Oath ordained by Queen Elisabeth That no Forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall with in this Realm I answer this Objection three wayes First as to the two Lawes
Court of the Church whereby men are compelled against their wills by Exteriour Meanes This the Apostles had not froÌ„ Christ nor their Successours froÌ„ them Neither did Christ ever assume any such power to him self in the world My Kingdome is not of this world And Man who made me a Iudge or divider over you Yet the greatest Controversies at this day in the Ecclesiasticall Court are about Possessions as Glebes Tithes Oblations Portions Legacies Administrations c. And if it were not for these the rest would not be so much valued in Criminibus non in Possessionibus potestas vestra quontam propter illa non propter has accepistis Claves regni Caelorum Saith St. Bernard well to the Pope Your power is in Crimes not in possessions for those and not for these you received the Keys of the kingdome of Heaven But suppose the Controversy to be about a Crime Yet who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison or punish them for not appearing without his leave All that power which Ecclesiasticall Iudges have of Externall Coaction they owe it wholy either to the Submission of the parties where the Magistrate is not Christian as the Iewes at this day doe undergoe such Penitentiall Acts as are enjoined them by their Superiours because the Reverence of them who obey doth supply the defects of their power who Command Or where the Magistrate is Christian they owe it to his Gracious Concessions Of which if any Man doubt and desire to see how this Coactive power how these externall Privileges did first come to be enjoyed by Ecclesiasticall persons Let him read over the first booke of the Code and the Authenticks or Novels of Iustinian And for our English Church in Particular let him consult with our best Historiographers Eadmerus was one whom they need not suspect of partiality as being Pope Vrbanes own Creature and by his speciall appointment placed over Anselm at his own intreaty as a Superviser to exercise his Obedience Whose injunctions had so much power over him that if he placed him in his Bed he would not onely not rise without his Command but not so much as turn him self from one side to another Vt cum Cubili locasset non solum sine praecepto ejus non surgereâ— sed nec latus inverteret What Marvell is it if the ancient Liberties of the English Church went first to wrack in Anselms Dayes about the Yeare of our Lord 1000 for he died Anno 1109 who being a Stranger Primate had so totally surrendered up his own reason to the Popes Creature Yet this Eadmerus saith of Lanfranke His wisdome recovered other Customes which the Kings of England by their Munificence had granted to the Church of Canterbury in ancient times and established them for ever by their sacred Decrees that it might be most free in all things All externall exemption and Coaction is Politicall and proceedeth originally from the Soveraign Prince This is that which S. Paul teacheth us The weapons of our warfare are not Carnall The weapons of the Church are Spirituall not worldly not externall But Citations and Compulsories and Significavits and Writs ad excommunicatum capiendum which are not written by the Bishops own hand yet at his beck and Apparitors and Iaolers c Are Weapons of this world and tend to externall Coaction For all which the Church is beholden to the Civill power to whom alone externall Coaction doth properly and originally belong This is that which St. Chrysostome observed in his comparison between a Bishop and a Shepheard It is not lawfull to cure men with so great Authority as the Shepheard cureth his Sheep For it is free for the Shepheard to bind his sheep to drive them from their meat to burn them to cut them But in the case of the Bishop the Faculty of curing consisteth not in him who administreth the Phisick but in him that is sick c. St. Chrysost. speaketh of power purely Spirituall which extendeth it self no further theÌ„ the Court of conscieÌ„ce where no man can be cured against his will But Soveraign Princes have found it expedieÌ„t for the good both of the Church and of the Commonwealth to strengthen the Bishops haÌ„ds by imparting some of their Politicall authority to him from whose gracious indulgence all that externall coactive power which Bishops have doth proceed Now to apply this to our purpose Wheresoever our Lawes doe deny all Spirituall Iurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sense that wee call the exteriour Court of the Churâ—h the Spirituall Court They doe not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the Keys or of any Spirituall power that was bequeathed unto him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy Yea even in relation to England it self Our Parliaments never did pretend to any power to change or Abridge divine right Thus much our very Proviso in the body of our Law doth testify that it was no part of our meaning to vary from the Articles of the Catholick Faith in any thing Nor to vary from the Church of Christ in any other thing declared by the holy Scripture and the word of God necessary to salvation If wee have taken away any thing that is of divine right it was retracted before it was done Then followeth the true Scope of our Reformation Onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in peace unity and tranquillity from ravine and spoile insuing much the ancient Customes of this Realm in that behalf That wich professed it self a Politick Ordinance doth not meddle with Spirituall Jurisdiction If it had medled with Spirituall Iurisdiction at all it had not insued the ancient Customes of the Realm of England In summe that externall Papall power which we rejected and cast out and which onely we cast out is the same which the English Bishops advised Aâ—selm to renounce when it was attempted to be obtruded upon the Kingdome But know that all the Kingdome complaineth against thee that thou endeavourest to take away from our Common Maister the Flowers of his Imperiall Crown Whosoever takes away the Customes which pertein to his royall dignity doth take away his Crown and Government together for we prove that one cannot be decently had without the other But we beseech the consider and cast away thy Obedience to that Vrban who cannot help the if the King be offended nor hurt thee if the King be pacified Shake of the yoke of Subjection and freely as it becomes an Arch-bishop of Canterbury in all thy Actions expect the Kings pleasure and Commands What soever power our Lawes did divest the Pope of they invested the King with it but they never invested the King with any Spirituall power or Iurisdiction witnesse the Injunctions of Queen Elisabeth witnesse the publick Articles of
for free Elections but shortly after there was nothing to be heard of but Provisions and such Simoniacall Arts. It is as easy to shape a Coat for the Moone which alteretb every day as to fit one constant Tradition to all these diversified Practises Thirdly he supposeth that all Parenâ—s have Iudgement to understand aright what they see and to penetrate into the secret Caballs and Practises of their times And Ingenuity void of self Interest to relate it rightly to their posterity But herein also he will fall much short of his aime Most Parents know what is acted publickly but they know little what is done in their retiring Roome They know who is their Bishop But who invested him what Oathes he hath made they are to seeke Most Parents see a Bishop fit in his Consistory But by what authority he sits whether meerly by the power of the Keys or partly by Concession of the Soveraign Prince they know nothing What doe thy understand of any distinction between Iurisdiction Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall and Politicall What Legends of Fopperies have been broughâ— into the Church by this Orall Tradition and the Credulity of Parents And if all Parents had Iudgement to understand these things Yet who shall secure us that they are void of Self interest The Philosopher found that all the people forsooke him so soone as the market Bell began to ring Lastly he supposeth one constant succession of Truth upon this Tenour or Method throughout many Ages Why doe wee heare words when we see deeds We see them change dayly if they had not changed we had had no need to leave their CoÌ„pany I have shewed him wheÌ„ and where and by whom all these changes wherein they and wee differ concerning discipline did come into the Church of EnglaÌ„d at least all those which made the Breach between us Immediate Orall Tradition without any further Corroboration is but a â—oy Perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition is an undeniable Evidence or so Vniversall for time and place That the Opposers have been censured in a manner Vniversally for Hereticks or Heterodox In a chaine if one linke be loose or have a notorious Crack or Flaw there is little trust to be reposed in it Then what Credit is to be given to the pretended Chaine of Tradition where the eleven first Linkes are altogether divided from the rest and fastened to the hand of the Soveraign Prince beyond the Popes reach The four next Linkes are full of Cracks and Flawes the Pope pulling at the one end and the Prince holding at the other The last Linke of all in England is put again into the hand of the Prince Where so many Centuries are wanting he is like but to maintain a poor TraditioÌ„ All this while I speake onely of the externall Regiment of the Church But it is a wonder to me why he of all others should so much magnify this MediuÌ„ of Immediate TraditioÌ„ as an inâ—allible Rule For if I be not misinformed by some FrieÌ„ds his Fathers chalked out another way to him by their Examples and Instructions to hold himself in the Communion of the Church of England But let that passe as not much materiall If he reduce his Argument into any Form he will quickly find that it halteth on both sides Whatsoever we received by immediate Tradition from our Fathers as the Legacy of Christ is infallibly true But we received those points of discipline wherein we differ by immediate Tradition from our Fathers as the Legacies of Christ. I deny both his Propositions my reasons he will find formerly at large I charged him for making two distinct Rules of Vnity whereas one would have served his Turne that he might have more opportunity to shuffle the later Vsurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church For this I am lashed as a man that cannot or will not write common sense with a deale of such poore stuffe not worth repeating Cannot a man abandon his Religion unlesse he abandon his Civility also He might remember that I had the honour to be a Doctor in the Vniversity I think assoone as he was a Schooleboy in the Country The first part of my Charge is confessed by him self that his first Principle doth also include the truth of the second If his second Principle be comprehended in the first then it is no new distinct Principle but either an inference or a Tautologie But let him carve and mince his Principles into shreds if he please rather then I will draw the Saw of Contention about the dream of a Shadow To the second part of my Charge he answereth that Neither I nor any man else can instance of any Vsurpation which did ever come in either in Secular or Ecclesiasticall Government pretending that Tenour or could come in so long as men adhered to that Method Doth not he pretend to that Tenour Or indeed taketh it for granted and would make us believe they doe adhere to that Method If they doe not his demonstration doth not weigh a Graine Yet I have shewed him heaps of usurpatioÌ„s more perhaps theÌ„ he is desirous to see Some men have made the Pope infallible in point of faith formerly but he is the first that ever made him uncapable of usurping and I thinke will be the last if he can perswade us with reason to be thus mad he deserveth to have his head stroked Go Go Mr. Serjeant Learn better there are more wayes of erring in point of Tradition either reall or supposed then the Conspiracy of a World of Fathers to tell a World of Children this Lye that ten yeares agoe they practised that which all the World besides knoweth they did not practise Of all men Juglers pretend most to perspicuous Evidence I was contented to admit both his Rules in Generall to try what use he could make of them against us but whether I use sharpnesse or blandishments he is still waspish See Reader the right Protestant Method which is to bring the Controversy from a Determinate State to Indetermination and Confusion I feare he will rather dislike my being too distinct and particular I have shewed him expresly what Branches of Papall power we have altogether rejected and what we are not unwilling to acknowledge for peace sake if that would content him which is more then he hath done hitherto as much as he will doe and I feare more then he dare doe They are not free from their Jealousies and Dissensions at home among them selves Hitherto he hath not adventured to let us know into what Church he himself resolveth his Faith whether the Virtuall Church that is the Pope or the Representative Church that is a Generall Councell or the essentiall Church that is the whole multitude of Believers whose Approbation is their reception And in this very PaÌ„ragraph he hath one passage that pointeth at the last opinion making the consent of Catholick Fathers immediatly attesting that they received this Doctrin from
his First Governourship are but generall unsignificant Termes which may agree as well to a beginning of Vnity or Primacy of Order as to an absolute Monarchy or plenitude of power If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly particulars began the breach particulars must stop rhe breach I have given him an account what particular Differences we have with him concerning St. Peter what particular Differences we have with him concerning the Pope let him apply him self to those aud not make continuall Excursions as he doth out of the Lists When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church as a Bishop in his Diocesse as a Metropolitan in his Province as the Bishop of an Apostolicall See and Successour of St. Peter I expected thaÌ„kes there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps without a new conflict But behold the evill natures or evill manners of this Age I am accused for this of frivolousnesse and insincerity Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology that whensoever the case commeth to be solidly discussed it will be found that the principall grounds if I had said the onely grounds I had not said much amisse of the Popes pretended Monarchy are the just rights and Privileges of his Patriarchateship his Protopatriarchateship and his Apostolicall Chaire mistaken for Royalties for want of good Distinction I know the Court of Rome who have been accustomed in these latter times to milke the purses of their Clients doe not love such a dry Primacy as he phraseth it but where they have no more right and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges they must have patience perforce His Parallel between the King of England and the Pope will be then to some purpose when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy untill then it is a mere begging of the Question what a grosse Solecisme that is in Logick he cannot chuse but know But since he is favourably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papall power so they believe the Substance of it and yet he himself either cannot or dare not determin what the Substance of Papall power is he might out of his Charity have compassion and not stile us Mountebankes who know no difference between Roman Catholiks and our selves about the Papacy but onely about the extent of Papall power Although he stile us hereticks now yet he was lately one of us himself and would have continued so longer if he had understood himself better or the times bene less Clowdy Let him call it Substance let him call it extent let him call it what he will I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy let him satisfy them as well as he â—an and let truth prevaile We have not â—enounced the substance of the Papacy exâ—ept the substance the Papacy doe consist â—n Coactive power I side with no parties â—ut honour the Church of England and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur He telleth his Reader that I grant the whole question where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over as the Bishop of â—n Apostolicall Church or Successor of St. Peter Much good may it doe him As if every Bishop of an Apostolicall Church were straight way an universall Monarch or as if Authority did alwaies necessarily imply jurisdiction or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legall judge I had reasoÌ„ to place a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in my Climax after a Patriarch for the larger extension of his Authority every where not for the higher intension of his jurisdiction any where I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter by the ordinance of Christ in this Privilege to be the Prince and Soveraign of the Church endowed with a single Soveraignty of power that the Great Councell of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equall Privileges to the Patriarch af Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperiall City more then the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument that the great Councell of Chalcedon did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople upon the Imperiall Dignity of those two Cities and to much more which is urged there against him he is as mute as a Fish but to the former part he answereth that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain superiour in Iurisdiction though they had equall Privileges Very pretty indeed He would have his Readers to believe that a Soveraign and his Subjects have equall Privileges Equalls have no power one over another there may be a Primacy of Order among Equalls but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peters Privilege to be Prince of the Apostles And doth not he tell us that this Privilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome Then if the Bishop of Constantinople have equall Privileges with the Bishop of Rome he is equall to him in this Privilege which descended froÌ„ S. Peter Let him listen to the eight and twentieth Canon of that Councell where having repeated and confirmed the decree of the Generall Councell of Constantinople to the same purpose they conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople moved with the same consideration did give equall Privileges to the See of new Rome Rightly judging that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equall Privileges with the ancient Imperiall City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiasticall affaires as well as it being the second in Order from it And in the last sentence of the Iudges upon the Review of of the Cause The Archbishop of the Imperiall City of Constantinople or new Rome must enjoy the same Privileges of honour and have the same power out of his own Authority to ordain MetropolitaÌ„s in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocesses That is as much in Law as to say have equall Iurisdiction for all other rights doe follow the right of Ordination But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon telling us that it was no free Act but voted tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Councell Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be It was done before the Bishops had their License to depart It had a secâ—nd hearing and was debated by the Popes own Legates on his behalf before the most glorious judges and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Councell This was one of those four
Legates did oppose the Acts of the Councell Gloriosissimi Iudices dixerunt The most glorieus Iudges said let both partyes plead the Canons By the Canons that great Councell of six hundred and thirty Fathers did examin it By the Canons they did determin it there was no inheritance pretended in the case Secondly if the Bishop of Rome did hold all his privileges by inheritance from S. Peter how much were three successive Popes over seen Zosimus Bonifacius and Caelestinus to ground them upon the canoÌ„s of the councell of Nice and these either counterfeited or mistaken for the Canons of Sardica Which when the African Fathers did find oâ—t by the true Copyes of the Nicene Councell they rejected that part of papall power as appeareth by their Letter to Pope Caelestine We earnestly beseech you that hence forwards you doe not easily lend an eare to such as come from hence nor which Bellarmine cuts of guilefully receive any more such as are excommunicated by us into your Communion with this sharp intimation Ne fumosum typum saeculi in Ecclesiam videamur inducere If soveraigne Iudicature did belong to the Bishop of Rome by Inheritance from St. Peter why did three popes challenge it upon the Decrees of the Nicene Concell and why did the Affrican Fathers refuse to admit it because it was not conteined in the Decrees of the Nicene Councell Thirdly if by Prince of Bishops Mr Serjeant understand an absolute Prince one who hath a single Legislative power To make Canons To abolish Canons to dispense with Canons as seemeth good in his owne eies if he makea greater Prince of the Steward then he doth of the Spouse of Christ he will have an hard Province to secure him self from the Censures of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the former of which were personally present one Empereur Two Popes Two Patriarchs All the Cardinalls The Embassadors of all' the Princes in the West and the Flower of Occidentall Schollars Divines and Lawyers These had reason to know the Tradition of the Universall Church as well as Mr. Serjeant Lastly before he can determine this to be an vndeniable truth and a necessary Bond of Vnity that the Bishop of Rome is Inheriâ—er of all the Privileges of St. Peter And that this Principle is Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture He must first reconcile him self to his own party There is a Comentary upon the Synodall answer of the councell of Basile printed at Colone in the yeare 1613. wherein is mainteined That the Provinces subject to the foure great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian church did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarchs And if the Pope be a Primate it is by the church If he be the head of all churches it is by the church and where as wee have said that it is expressed in the councell of Nice that many provinces were subjected to the church of Rome by Ecclesiasticall custome and no other right the Synod should doe the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome if it should attribute those things to him onely from Custom which were his due by divine right Gerson goeth much more accurately to worke distinguishing Papall rights into three sorts divine which the Bishop of Rome challengeth by succession from St. Peter Canonicall wherewith he hath been trusted by generall councells and civil granâ—ed to that See by the Emperours Of the first sort he reckoneth no more but three privileges To call councells To give sentencee with councels and Iurisdiction purely spirituall Among the Propositions given in to the councell of Pisa and printed with the acts of the councell wee find these first Although the Pope as he is the Vicar of Christ may after a certain manner be called the head of the church Yet the Vnity of the church doth not depend necessarily or receive its beginning from the Vnity of the Pope Secondly The church hath power and authority originally and immediatly from Christ its head to congregate it self in a gonerall councell to preserve its Vnity It is added That the Catholick church hath this power also by the Law of Nature Thirdly In the Acts of the Apostles we read of four Councells Convocated and not by the Authority of Peter but by the Common Consent of the Church And in one Councell celebrated at Ierusalem we read not that Peter but that Iames the Bishop of the Place was President and gave Sentence He concludeth that the Church may call a Generall Councell without the Authority of the Pope and in some cases though he contradict it The Writers and writings of those times in and about the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells doe a bound with such expressions Before he determined positively The divine right of the Papacy as it includeth a Soveraignty of power he ought to consider seriously what many of his own friends have written about it as Canus and Cusanus and Stapleton and Soto and Driedo and Segovius as it is related by Aeneas Sylvius and others That the Popes succession is not revealed in Scripture That Christ did not limit the Primacy to any particular Church That it cannot be proved that the Bishop of Rome is perpetuall Prince of the Church That the Glosse which preferreth the Iudgement of the Roman Church before the Iudgement of the world singular and foolish and unworthy to be followed That it hath been a Catholick Tenet in former times that the Primacy of the Roman Bishop doth depend not upon divine but human right and the positive Decrees of the Church That men famous in the Study of Christian Theology have not been affraid in great Assemblies to assert the Humane Right of the Pope He ought to Consider what is said of a great King that Theologians affirmed that the Pope was the head of the Church by divine right but when the King required them to prove it they could not demonstrate it And lastly what the Bishop of Chalcedon saith lately To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peters Successour and this all Fathers Testify and all ihe Catholick Church believeth but whether he be so Jure divino or humano is no point of Faith Here Reader I must intreat the before wee proceed a step-farther to read his Assertion That the Constant beliefe of the Catholick World was and is that this Principle namely that the Bishop of Rome inherited the Privileges of St. Peter is Christs own Ordination recorded in Scripture Derived to us by the strongest Evidences that our Nature is capable of What a strange Confidenee is this to tell his Readers he cares not what so it may serve his present turne How should this be recorded in Scripture when the Bisshoprick of Rome is never mentioned in Scripture nor so much as whether St. Peter ever was at Rome Except we understand Rome by Babilon but this is too remote and too obscure to
affirm That neither the King of England nor the Church of England neither Convocation nor Parliament did breake his two Necessary Bonds of Christian Vnity or either of them or any part of either of them But that the Very Breakers and Violaters of these Rules were the Pope and Court of Rome They did breake his Rule of Faith by adding new points to the Necessary Doctrin of saving Truth which were not the Legaceyes of Christ and his Apostles nor delivered unto us by Universall and perpetuall Tradition The Pope and Court of Rome did breake his second Rule of Vnity in Discipline by obtruding their excessive and intolerable usurpations vpon the Christian world and particularly upon the Church of England as necessary Conditions of their Communion It appeareth plainly by comparing that which hath been said with his positioÌ„ of the case that after all his Bragges of undeniable evidence and unquestionable certeinty he hath quite missed the question We joine with him in his rule of Faith Wee oppose not St. Peters Primacy of Order and he him self dare not say that St. Peter had a larger or more extended power then the rest of his Fellow Apostles And though wee cannot force our understandings to assent that after the death of S. Peter Linus or Cletus or Clemens or Anacleâ—us were Superiours to S. Iohn and had actuall Iurisdiction over him who had as large a commission immediatly from Christ as S. Peter himselfe and larger then any succeeding Romane Bishop ever had Yet to shew him how little wee are concerned in it and for his clearer conviction wee are willing to suppose that they were his Superiours and give him leave to make all the advantage of his second Rule which he can in this cause And here if I regarded not the satisfaction of my self and the Reader more then his opposition I might withdraw my hand from the Table But I am so great a Friend of Ingenuity that I will for once discharge his Office and shew the World demonstratively and distinctly what Branches of Papall power were cast out of England by Henry the eighth upon which consideration the weight of the whole Controversy doth lye For it is agreed between us that if it appeare by rigorous Evidence that all those Branches of Papall power which were renounced and cast out of England by Henry the eight were grosse Vsurpattons then his renouncing was no eriminall Breach but a lawfull self enfranchisement And by undeniable consequence the Guilt of â—chism resteth upon them who made the Vsurpations that is the Pope and Court of Rome I adde further upon the equity of my second Ground that although Henry the eight had cast out something more then be ought yet if wee hold not out more then wee ought and be ready to admitt all which ought to be admitted by us then we are innocent and free from the Guilt of Schism and it resteth soly upon them who either will have more then their due or nothing Wheresoever the fault is there the Guilt of Schisme is If the fault be single the Guilt is single if the fault be mutuall the Guilt is mutuall And for rigorous Evidence There cannot possibly be any Evidence more demonstrative what Papall power was cast out of England then the very Acts of Parliaments themselves by which it was cast out Let us view them all The first Act made in the Reign of Henry the eight which hath any referente to Rome is the Act for holding Plurality of Benefices against the lawes of the land by dispensation from the Court of Rome making licenses for non Residence from the Court of Rome to be voide and the party who procureth such Licenses for Pluralityes or Non-residence to forfeyt twenty pounds and to lose the profits of that Benefice which he holdeth by such dispensation It were a pretty thing indeed if the Church and Kingdome should make necessary lawes and the Pope might give them liberty to break them at his pleasure The second Act is that No person shall be cited out of tâ—e diocesse where he dwelleth except in certain cases Which though it may seem to reflect upon the Court of Rome yet I do not find that it is concerned in it but the Arches Audience and other Archiepiscopall Courts within the Realm The third Act is meerly declarative of the law of the land as well the Common lawes as the Statute lawes and grounded wholy upon them as by the View of the Statute it self doth appeare So it casteth out no forraine power but what the lawes had cast out before The summe of it is this That all Causes Matrimoniall Testamentary or about Tithes c. shall be heard and finally judged in England by the proper Iudges Ecclesiasticall and Civill respectively and not elswhere notwithstanding any forrein Inhibitions Appeales Sentences citations suppensions or Excommunications And that if any English Subject procure a Processe Inhibition Appeale c. From or to the Court of Rome or execute them to the hinderance of any processe here he shall incurre the Penalties ordained by the Statute of provision or premunire made in the sixteenth yeare of King Richard the second against such as make provision to the See of Rome This law was eâ—larged afterwards to all causes of Ecclesiasticall cognisance and all appeales to Rome forbidden The fourth Act is an Act for punishing of Heresy Wherein there are three clauses that concern the Bishop of Rome The First is this And that there be many Heresies and paines and punishments for Heresies Declared and ordained in and by the Canonicall Sanctions and by the Lawes and Ordinations made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome and by their Authorities for holding doing preaching of things contrary to the said Canonicall Sanctions Lawes and Ordinances which be but humane being meer repugnant and contrarious to the royall Prerogative Regall Iurisdiction Lawes Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm The second Clause is that No License be obtained of the Bishop of Rome to Preach in any part of this Realm or to doe any thing contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm or the Kings Prerogative Royall The third Clause followeth That the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome not confirmed by Holy Scriptures were never commonly attested to be any Law of God or man within this Realme And that it should not be deemed Heresy to speak or doe contrary to the pretended power or Authority of the Bishop of Rome made or given by Humane Lawes and not by Scriptures nor to speake or Act contrary to the Lawes of the Bishop of Rome being contrary to the Lawes of this Realm The Fifth Act is an Act concerning the Submission of the Clergy to the Kings Majesty The scope of it is this that the Clergy shall not assemble in Convocation nor make or proniulge any new Canons without the Kings License Hitherto there is nothing new in point of Law Then that the King should have
no such power in the Pope to absolve Subjects from their allegiance in our Law With us Clergymen did ever pay Subsidies and taxes as well as lay men This is one Liberty which England hath not to admit of the Popes Lawes unlesse they like them A second Liberty of England is to reject the Popes Lawes in plaine termes The Pope made a Law for the Legitimation of Children borne afore Matrimony as well as those borne in Matrimony The Bishops moved the Lords in Parliament that they would give their consent to the Common Order of the Church But all the Earles and Barons answered with one voice that they would not change the Lawes of the Realm which hitherto had been used and approved The Popes legislation could not make a Law in England without the concurrence of the three Orders of the Kingdome and they liked their own old Lawes better then the Popes new Law A Third Liberty of England is to give a legislative Interpretation to the Popes Lawes which the Pope never intended The Bishop of Rome by a constitution made at the Councell of Lions excluded Bigamists men twice Married from the Privilege of Clergy that is that should Marry the second time de futuro But the Parliament made an Act that the constitution should be understood on this wise that whether they were Bigamists before the constitution or after they should not be delivered to the Prelates but Iustice should be executed upon them as upon other Lay people Ejus est Legem Interpretari cujus est condere They that can give a Law a new sense may abrogate it if they please A fourth Liberty of England is to call the Popes Lawes Vsurpations Encroachments Mischiefs contrary to and destructive of the Municipall Lawes of the Realme derogatory to the Kings Regality And to punish such of their Subjects as should pursue them and obey them with Imprisonment with Confiscation of their Goods and Lands with outlawing them and putting them out of the Kings Protection Witnesse all those noble Lawes of Provisors and Premunire Which we may truely call the Palladium of England which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast Gulfe of the Roman Court made by Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second and Henry the fourth All those Collations and Reservations and Provisions and Privileges and Sentences which are condemned in those Statutes were all grounded upon the Popesâ—Lawes and Bulls and Decrees which our Ancestors entertained as they deserved Othobon the Popes Legate in England by the Command of Vrban the fifth made a Constitution for the endowment of Vicars in Appropriations but it prevailed not whereas our Kings by two Acts of Parliament did easily effect it No Ecclesiastical Act is impossible to them who have a Legislative power but many Ecclesiasticall Acts were beyond the Sphere of the Popes Activity in England The King could make a spirituall Corporation but the Pope could not The King could exempt from the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary but the Pope could not The King could Convert Seculars into Regulars but the Pope could not The King could grant the Privilege of the Cistercians but the Pope could not The King could Appropriate Churches but the Pope could not Our Lawes never acknowledged the Popes plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power which was the ground of his legislation Euphemius objected to Gelasius that the Bishops of Rome alone could not condemne Acatius ab uno non potuisset damnari Gelasius answered that he was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon and that his Predecessor was but the Executor of an old Law and not the Author of a new This was all the ancient Bishops of Rome did challenge to be Executors of Ecclesiasticall Lawes and not single Law makers I acknowledge that in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania he attributeth much to the Bishops of Rome wich a Councell but it is not in making new Lawes or Canons but in executing old as in the case of Athanasius and Chrysostome The Privileges of the Abby of Saint Austin in EnglaÌ„d granted by the Popes were condemned as null or of no validity because they were not ratified by the King and approved by the Peers William the Conquerer would not suffer any man within his Dominions to receive the Pope for Apostolicall Bishop but by his command nor to receive his letters by any meanes â—nlesse they were first shewed to him It is â—ikely this was in a time of Schisme when there were more Popes then one but is sheweth how the King did interest himself in the affaires of the Papacy that it should have no further influence upon his subjects then he thought fit He who would not suffer any man to receive the Popes letters without his leave would much less suffer them to receive the Popes lawes without leave And in his prescript to Remigius Bishop of Lincolneâ— know ye all Earles and Viscounts that I â—ave judged that the Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall lawes which have bene of force untill my time in the Kingdome of England being not well constituted according to the praecepts of the holy Canons should be amended in the common assembly and with the Counsaile of my arch-Arch-Bishops and the rest of the Bishops and Abbats and all the Princes of my Kingdome He needed not the helpe of any forreine Legislation for amending Ecclesiasticall Canons and the externall regiment of the Church Now let us see whether the Libertyes of France be the same with our English Privileges The second Liberty is this The Spirituall Authority and power of the Pope is not absolute in Franee if it be not absolute then it is not singly Legislative but limited and restreined by the Canons and ancient Councells of the Church If it be limâ—ted by Ancient Canons then it hath no power to abrogate Ancient Canons by new Canons Their ancient Canons are their Ecclesiasticall Lawes as well as ours and those must be received in that Kingdome They may be excellent Advisers without reception but they are no Lawes without publick reception Canons are no Canons either in England or in France further then they are received The third Liberty is No Command whatsoever of the Pope Papall decrees are his chief Commands can free the French Clergy from their Obligation to obey the Commands of their Soveraign But if Papall power could abrogate the ancient Lawes of France it did free their Clergy from their Obedience to their Soveraign Prince The sixteenth Liberty is The Courts of Parliament have power to declare null and voide the Popes Bulls wheÌ„ they are found contrary to the Liberties of the French Church or the Prerogative Royall The twentieth Liberty The Pope cannot exempt any Church Monastery or Ecclesiasticall Body from the jurisdiction of their Ordinary nor erect Bishopricks into Arch Bishopricks nor unite them nor divided them without the Kings license England and France as touching their Liberties walk hand in hand To conclude the Popes
Subjection at all to another Church They all agree in this the Britons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all waies ordained at home independent upon any forrain Prelate ought no subjection to Rome And there fore it is no great wonder if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the favourite both of the Pope and people not long before his own promotion to the Papacy whether the Ilanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet who having commended this Dinoth for a learned and a prudent man he addeth that Austin meeting him did demand that they should performe subjection to him as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome and demanded further that he would help him in preaching but he denied the one and the other Still Subjection is denied With these Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry Spellman and all our Antiquaries doe agree exactly And none of our Historiographers that I know doe disagree from it in the least who write upon that subject though some set it down more fully then others Iudge now Reader of Mr. Serjeants Knowledge or Ingenuity who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play and when I said the British Clergy did renounce all obedieÌ„ce to the Bishop of Rome citing Bede and all others telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once I challenge him to name but one Historiographer who affirmeth the contrary to that which all these doe affirm if he be not able as he is not I might safely say without asking him leave that it striketh the Question dead His third Exception that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry Spellman found any other Antiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth mentioning is so dull and unsignificant a piece that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it And such like are his other Obâ—ections which helpresseth not but toucheth gently the Heads of them will not merit a repetition having been answered already by Doctor Hammond But when he is baffeld in the cause he hath a Reserve that Venerable Bede and Gildas and Fox in his Acts and Monuments do brand the Britons for wicked men making them as good as Atheists Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one he will neither wish the Pope such Friends nor envy them to the Protestants What needed this when he hath got the worst of the cause to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stinke We read no other Character of Dinoth but as of a pious learned and prudent man If Gildas or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular persons There were St. Davids St. Dubricius's St. Thelaâ—s's St. Oudoceus's and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda What have they said more of the Britons then God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people or more then the Saxons have said one of another or more then maybe retorted upon any NatioÌ„ in Europe Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions theÌ„ St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints The Question is whether the British Church did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome Let him adorn this Sparta and leave other impertinencies Sect. V. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdrawe their obedience from Rome The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consisting of these three particulars That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it And that they did it with due moderation His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three SectioÌ„s whereof this is the first Whatsoever he prateth in this Section of my shuffing away the whole Question by balking the Bishop of Romes divine right to his Soveraignty of power to treat of his Patriarchall right which is humane is first vain For I alwayes was and still am ready to joine Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Romes divine right to a Monarchicall power in the Church saving alwaies to myself and my cause this advantage That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiasticall are inconsistent And this right being saved I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Popes Monarchy then about his Patriarchate Secondly as it is vaine so it is altogether impertinent for my Ground is this that a Soveraign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the publick good to change any thing in the externall Regiment of the Church which is not of divine Institution but the Popes pretended Patronage of the English Church and his Legislative Iudiciary and dispensative power in the exteriour Courtes of the same Church doe concern the externall Regiment of the Church aud are not of divine Institution Here the Hindge of our Controversy doth move without encombring our selves at all with Patriarchall Authority Thirdly I say that this discourse is not onely vaine and extravagant but is likewise false The Popes Protopatriarchall power and the Authority of a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as the keper of Apostolicall Traditions deposited in that Church are the fairest flowers in his Garland Whatsoever power he pretendeth to over the whole Church of Christ above a Primacy of Order is altogether of humane right and the Application of that Primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of humane right And whatsoever he presumeth of the Vniversall Tradition of the Christian Church or the Notion which the former and present world and we our selves before the Reformation had of the Papacy that is of the Divine right of the Popes Soveraignty is but a bold ratling groundlesse bragge I did and doe affirm that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand yeers since not explicitly by making a formall Resignation of it but implicitly by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it I was contented to forbeare further disputing about Patriarchall rights upon two Conditions one that he should not presume that the Pope is a Spirituall Monarch without proving it The other that he should not attempt to make Patriarchall Privileges to be Royall Prerogatives This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me If he had had so much Civility in him he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him of two Errours which I was sure he would Commit After all his Bravadoes all that he hath pretended to prove is but a Headship a First Movership a Chief Governourship about which we have no Difference with them and all the proofe he bringeth even of that is a bold presumption that there
because no reason doth permit that such an Assembly should be made in an Imperiall City without the leave of the Lord of the place Thirdly because Generall Councells were made then at the Publick Charge He might have added that Councells did receive their Protection from Emperours and they who sit in Councells were the Subjects of Emperours In the second place he erreth in this also that we have taken away the meanes of assembling Generall Councells We have taken away no power from the Pope of convocating any Synods except onely Synods of the King of Englands Subjects within his own dominions without his leave which Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth to be agreable to reason If the Pope have any right either to convocate Generall Councells himself or to represent to Christian Soveraigns the fit seasons for Convocation of them either in respect of his Beginning of Vnity or of his Protopatriarchate we do not envy it to him since there may be a good use of it in respect of the division of the Empire so good caution be observed Bellarmine confesseth that that power which we acknowledge that is that though the Pope be no Ecclesiasticall Monarch but onely chief of the Principall Patriarchs yet the right to convocate Generall Councells should pertein unto him But it may be this is more then Mr. Serjeant did know My last Ground was the Exemtion of the Britannick Churches from forrein Iurisdiction by the Generall Councell of Ephesus As to the Exemtion of the Britannick Churches he referreth himself to what he had said formerly and so do I. To the Authority of the Councell of Ephesus he answereth that howsoever Cyprus and some others are exemted from a Neighbouring Superiour falsly pretending a Iurisdiction over them yet I shall never shew a Syllable in the Councell of Ephesus exemting from the Popes Iurisdiction as head of the Church Not directly a maÌ„ may safely sweare it for the Councell never suspected it the world never dreamed of it the Popes themselves never pretended to any such headship of Power and Vniversall Iurisdiction over the whole Church in those dayes All that the Primitive Popes claymed by divine right was a Primacy of Order or Beginning of Vnity due to the Chaire of St. Peter all that they claimed by humane right were some Privileges partly gained by Custome or Prescription and partly granted by the Fathers to to the See of Rome because it was the Imperiall City But there is enough in this very Canon collaterally to overthrow all the Vsurpations of the Roman Court There is no need that Britain should be named particularly where all the Provinces without exception are comprehended Let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces There is no need that the Bishop of Rome should be expressed where all the Bishops are prohibited That no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessours If the Fathers were so tender of pride creeping into the Church in those dayes or of the danger to lose their Christian Liberty in the case of the Bishop of Antioch who pretended neither to divine right nor Vniversall Iurisdiction what would they have said or done in the present case of the Bishop of Rome who challengeth not onely Patriarchall but Soveraign Iurisdiction not over Cyprus onely but over the whole world not from Custome or Canons but from the institution of Christ If Maister Serjeant be in the right then the Bishop of Antioch was quite out to sue for the Iurisdiction of Cyprus which beloÌ„ged more to the Bishops of Rome then to him Then the Bishops of Cyprus were quite oâ—t to challenge the Ordination of themselves and Iurisdiction over one another as a proper right belongiâ—g to themselves which they hold onely by Courtesy and favour from the Bishop of Rome Then the holy Synod was quite out to Determine so positively that not onely Cyprus but every Province should enjoy its rights and Customes inviolated which it had from the beginning without a Salvo or saving the right of the Bishop of Rome or a restriction so long as he pleaseth to permit them and to doe it in such Imperiall Terms It hath pleased the holy Synod or such is our pleasure Lastly the Pope himself was out to ratify the Privileges and exemptions of the Cyprian Bishops not onely from the Patriarch of Antioch but from himself also and to suffer his divine right to be trampled under foot by Customs and Canons which are of no force without him But this is the least part of the passages in the foure First Generall Councells which are repugnant to the Popes pretensions of a Generall Monarchy The Eastern Churches doe still adhere firmly to the Primitive Discipline and for this cause the Pope hath thought fit to excommunicate them Si violandum jus est regnandi causâ violandum est Against all our Grounds the most intolerable extortions that ever were heard of most grievous Vsurpations malignant Influence both upon the State Politick and Ecclesiastick and undoubted Privileges he produceth nothing but immediate Tradition and you must be content to take his bare word for it for he is altogether unfurnished of proofes Some men by telling strange Stories over and over do come at last to believe them It may be he believeth there was a Tradition for those Branches of Papall power which we cast out but we deny it altogether and require him to prove first that there was such a Tradition in England next that a particular Tradition is a sufficient proofe of divine Institution We admit readily that the Vnity of the Church is of great importance and the breaking of it an heinous Crime and that no abuses imaginable are sufficient excuse for a totall desertion of a just power Thus far in the Thesis we agree but in the Hypothesis we differ That which is a sufficient ground for a reformation is not a sufficient Ground for an extirpation So many so grievous so unconscionable extortions and Vsurpations and malignant influences as we complain of and prove are without all peradventure a sufficient ground of Reformation which is all our Ancestours did or we defend though not a sufficient cause of the extirpation of any just Authority Our Grounds are sufficient for a Reformation of abuses and encroachments which we acknowledge and which is all we did at the Reformation but for the abolition of any just power it is his fond Imagination we disclaime it altogether We have cast out all Papall Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court as being Politicall not Spirituall but for any Papall Iurisdiction either purely spirituall or justly founded we have not medled with it Those things which we have cast out are onely abuses and Vsurpations So there is no need of that Consideration which he proposeth whether the abuses were otherwise remediable or not for our Reformation is that very Remedy which he himself hath prescribed to
by all Catholicks c. For which you are excommunicated It is true they did not deny us Communion for holding this Opinion nor presse upon us an unconscientious Approbation of this Opinion directly for any thing that I know but neverthelesse they have by their power subjected a Generall Councell to the Pope they have procured it to be defined though not expresly in the Councell of Florence and to be expresly defined in the Councell of Lateran under Leo the tenth Hence it is that all the Councells since the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells have wanted Conciliary Freedome and been altogether at the Disposition of the Popes to prorogue them to tranfferre them to stin◠them what matters they might handle and what not to deferre their Determinations untill he had formed or created a party or wrought some of the dissenting Bishops to his will to ratify or reject their decrees at his pleasure When or where was it ever heard before that there was twice as many Bishops of one Nation in a Generall Councell as of all other Nations in the world Hence was that complaint of the Fathers in the Councell of Trent that the Synode was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male. If it had not been for this thing but the Fathers had been permitted freely to have proceeded in the Councell of Trent in the Resolution of that noble Question concerning the Residence and divine Right of Bishops in all probability this great rent had been made up and he and I had not needed to have disputed this Question at this Day Thus by this Opinion and by their Sinister Practises to establish it they are causally and formally Schismaticall and have been both the procreating and conserving Cause of this great Schisme the procreating cause by altering the Hierarchy and Disordering the Members which doth necessarily produce a disturbance and Schisme in the Body and the conserving cause by destroying the Freedome of Councells which are the proper Remedies of Schisme Whether these later Councells were Occumenicall or Occidentall or neither is not the point in debate They are those which they call Generall They were as Generall as they would permit them to be and to conclude it was their fault that they were not more Generall So though this were not the very cause alleged by them why they did excommunicate us yet it was one of the Causes of the Schisme and consequently of our Excommunication I leave every man free to Iudge for himself but for mine own part I am so great a Lover of the peace of Christendome that I should not oppose the Bishop of Romes headship of Order if he would be content with it and that is as much as many whom he stileth his own Sons do yield him But though that be sufficient for the Catholick Church it is not sufficient for the Court of Rome to fill their Coffers they love not such a Dry Papacy I dispute onely whether the Popes right be Divine or humane or mixed as Gerson thought either score may justly challenge Duty But I am very positive that whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath more then this Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity he had it by humane right and by humane right he may lose it Neither doe I goe about to deprive the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whatsoever of any Iurisdictiō purely spirituall which was left them as a Legacy by Christ or by his Apostles but I deny that Apparitors or Pursivants or Prisons are of Christs Institution I deny that Christ or his Apostles did ever either exercise themselves or grant to others Authority to exercise Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes within their Dominions and without their leaves If Subjects submit Volenti non fit injuria but then it is not Coactive If Princes give leave as they have done in all Ages so far as they judged it expedient for the publick good then it is very lawfull but without the Subjects submission or the Princes leave there may be indeed a spirituall kind of Coactiō in the interiour Court of Conscience but no true coactiō in the exteriour Court of the Church I see he understandeth not the sense of that Logicall restriction The Papacy as it is such which signifieth not the Papacy as it ought to be or so far as all Roman Catholicks doe agree about it but the Papacy as it is Qualified in present or as it is owned or obtruded or endeavoured to be obtruded by the Pope and Court of Rome So the Papacy as it is such is opposed or contradistinguished to the Ancient Papacy in the purer and more Primitive times which was not guilty of those Vsurpations which the modern Popes have introduced Thus still my Contradiction doth end in his misunderstanding My fourth ād last charge of Schisme upō the Pope and Court of Rome was thus They who take away the Line of Apostolicall Successiō throughout the world except in the See of Rome who make all Episcopall Iurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome and to be founded in his Lawes to be imparted to other Bishops as the Popes Vicars and Coadjutors assumed by them into part of their Charge are Schismaticks But the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners do thus Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners are Schismaticks To this Argument he vouchsafeth no answer at all in due Forme as it ought to be and I have no reason to insist long upon his Voluntary Iargon All the Answer which he intimateth is this that this Tenet is not Generall among them but points of Faith are held generally Here is an answerlesse Answer without confessing or denying either Proposition such an Answer doth not become one who maketh himself so great a Master in the Art of disputing I charge not their whole Church but the Pope and Court of Rome and all their Abetters and Mainteiners with the Crime of Schisme I conclude no more then I assume He answers that the whole Church dot not hold these Tenets What is that to the purpose As if a Particular person as the Pope or a Particular Society as the Court of Rome or the greater part of a Church as all their Abetters and mainteiners could not be Schismaticks except the whole Church be Schismaticall which is most absurd I am free to charge whom I will if he will not answer for them he may be silent but if he undertake to be their Advocate let him defend them in due Forme as he ought and not tell us that he is not concerned as a Controvertist to defend any thing but Points of Faith Which is neither better nor worse in plain English then to run away from the Question All our Controversy is whether such and such pretended Privileges be Papall Rights or Papall Vsurpations If he dare not maintein them to be just rights either by divine Law
power to name and constitute two and thirty Commissioners sixteen of the Clergy and other sixteen of the Peers and Parliament to view the Ecclesiasticall Lawes of the Kingdome and declare which were fit to be retained and which were to be abrogated The same Law is confirmed and enlarged The Sixth Law restreineth the payment of Tenths and First Fruits to the Bishop of Rome And prescribeth how Arch-bishops Bishops c. are to be elected and consecrated within the Realm without payment of any thing to Rome for Bulls and Pals c. The seventh law is an Act of Eâ—oneration of the Kings subjects from exactions and impositions heretofore paid to the See of Rome for Pensions Peterpence Licenses Dispensations Confirmations faculties c. and for having licenses and dispensations within the Realm without further suing for the same As being Vsurpations coâ—trary to the law of the land The eighth Act is Concerning the Kings Highnesse to be supreme Head of the Church of England that is Politicall head and to have Authority to redresse all Errours Heresies and Abuses in the same That is to say with externall Coactive Iurisdiction Wee never gave our Kings the power of the Keys or any part of either the Key of Order or the Key of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall but onely that Coactive power in the externall Regiment of the Church which their Predecessors had alwayes enjoyed The Ninth Act is for the annexing Tenths and first fruits to the Crown for the better supportation of the Burthens of the Commouwealth The tenth Act is au Act extinguâ—shing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or extirpating it out of this Realm That is Not the Bishop of Romes Primacy of Order Not his beginning of Vnity Not that respect which is dne to him as Bishop of an Apostolicall See If he have not these it is his own fault This is not our quarrell It is so far from it that wee do not envy him any just legacies of Christian Emperours or Generall Councells But that which our Ancestors did extinguish and endeavour to extirpate out of England was the Popes externall Coactive power over the Kings Subjects in foro contentioso as wee shall see by and by when we come to state the quarrell rightly between us After this Act there followed au eleventh Act made for corroborating of this last Act to exclude the usurped power and Iurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome And both these Acts are backed with new Oaths as those times were fruitfull of Oaths such as they were The last Act of any moment was an Act of Ratification of the Kings Majestjes Style of Supreme head of the Church of England making it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it But as well the eighth Act which gave the King that title of the Head of the Church as this twelfth Act which makes it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it are both repealed and never were restored So are likewise the tenth Act of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome and the eleventh act made for corroboration of that Act with both their Oaths included in them All that hath been added since of moment which concerneth the Bishop of Rome is one Act Restoring to the Crown the ancient Iurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall and abolishing all forrain power repugnant to the same Here is no power created in the Crown but onely an ancient Iurisdiction restored Here is no forrein power abolished but onely that which is repugnant to the ancient Lawes of England and to the Prerogative Royall In a word here is no power ascribed to our Kings but meerly Politicall aud Coactive to see that all their Subjects doe their Dutyes in their severall places Coactive power is one of the Keys of the Kingdome of this world it is none of the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven This might have been expressed in Words lessé subject to exception But the case is clear The Grand Act xxv Hen. 8. cap. 12 The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth The Articles of our Chutch Art 37. doe all proclaime that this power is merely Politicall Christ gave St. Peter a Commission to preach to baptise to bind and loose in the Court of Conscience but where did he give him a Commission to give Licenses to grant Facultyes to make Lawes to dispense with lawes to receive appeales to impose Tenths and First fruits in other mens Kingdomes whether the right owner will or no Who gave him power to take other mens Subjects against their Wills to be his Officers and Apparitors That is more power then Christ himself did challenge here upon Earth And now Reader take a Stand and looke about thee See among all these Branches of Papall power which were cast out of England if thou caust find either of St. Peters Keys or his Primacy of Order or his Beginning of Vnity or anything which is purely Spirituall that hath no further influence then merely the Court of Conscience No but on the other side behold a pack of the grossest Usurpations that ever were hatched and all so late that is was above a thousand years after the death of S. Peter be fore any of his pretended Privileges did see the sun in England observe them one by one The first is a power to dispense with English Subjects for holding Plurality of Benifices contrary to the Lawes of England And for non Residents contrary to the Statutes of the Realm It had been much to have made Merchandise of his own Decrees but to Dispense with the Lawes of the Land Non auderet haec facere Viduae mulieri He durst not doe so much to a poore widow woman as he did to the Church and Kingdome of England to dispense with their Lawes at his pleasure It is but vain for the Flower of our Kingdome to assemble aud consult about healthfull Lawes if a Forrainer have power to dispense with the breach of them as it seemeth good in his Eyes They might as well sit them downquietly fall to pilling of rushes The second Branch of Papall power which was Excluded out of England was the Popes Iudiciary power I doe not mean in Controversies of Faith when he is in the Head of a councell Yet Eugeniur the fourth confesseth that in points of Faith the sentence of the councel is rather to be atteÌ„ded theÌ„ the sentence of the Pope But I mean in points of meum and tuum not onely in some rare cases between Bishop and Bishop which had been lesse intollerable and had had more shew of Iustice but generally in all cases promiscuously as if the whole nation wanted either discretion or Law to determin their own differences at home without the help of the Roman Courtier tosqueese their purses It was not Henry the eighth but the old Lawes of England which gave them this blow against Appeales to Rome The third Branch of papall
fourth Custome was this that when an Arch Bishoprick Bishoprick Abbacy or Priory did fall void the Election was to be made by such of the Principall Dignitaryes or Members of that respective Church which was to be filled as the king should call together for that purpose with the kinges consent in the kings own Chappell And there the person elected was to doe his Homage and Fealty to the King as to his Liege Lord The Pope had no part to Act neither to collate nor consent nor confirm nor Institute nor induct nor ordeine The Second Law is the Statute of Carlile made in the time of Edward the First The summe of it is this That the king is the Founder of all Bishopricks and ought to have the Custody of them in the Vacancyes and the right of Patronage to present to them And that the Bishop of Rome usurping the Right of Patronage giveth them to aliens That this tendeth to the annullation of the State of holy Church to the Disinheriting of Kings and the Destruction of the Realm And they ordained in full Parliament that this is an Oppression that is as much as an entroachment or Vsurpation and should not be suffered The third law was made in the 15th yeare of Edward the third called the Statute of Provisors wherein they affirm that Elections were First granted by the Kings Progenitors upon a certain form or Condition to demand Licenfe of the King to chuse and after the Election to have his Royall Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to resort to his First nature And there fore conclude that in case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch Bishoprick c. Our Soveraign Lord the King and his Heirs shall have and enjoy the Collations for the same time to the said Arch Bishopricks Bishopricks and other dignityes Elective which be of his Aavowre such as his Progenitors had before the free Election was granted They tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Land is such that the King is bound to make remedyes and Lawes against such mischiefes And they acknowledge that he is Advowée Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benifices which are of the Advowry of holy Church That is as much as Soveraign Patron of the Church Where no Election can be made without the Kings Congé d' Estire or leave antecedent nor stand good without his subsequent consent it is all one as if the Crown did Collate I come next to the second Branch of the First Question about the Patronage of the Church Who hath power to Convocate and Dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and whether the Crown or the Pope have usurped one upon another in this particular I cannot tell whether Henry the eighth or Paul the third did mistake more about that Aiery title of the head of the english church Henry the eight supposing that the right to convocate and dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and to receive Tenths and First fruits did esseÌ„tially follow this Title And Paul the third declaringe it to be Hereticall and Schismaticall To be head of the English Church is neither more nor lesse then our Lawes and Histories ancient and Modern doe every where ascribe to our English Kings To be Governers of Christians To be the Advocates of the Church To be Patrons and Advowées Paramont of all Churches To be Defenders of the Faâ—h there Professed And to use the Words of the Convocation it self Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectores singulares Vnicos Supremos Dominos The same body may have severall heads of severall kinds upon Earth as Politicall and Ecclesiasticall and then that which takes care of the Archirectonicall end to see that every member doe his Duty is alwayes Supreme That is the Politicall head This truth Cardinall Poole did see clearly enough and reconcile the seeming difference by distinguishing between a Regall head and a Sacerdotall head This truth the French Divines see wel enough and doubt not to call their King the Terrene head of the Church of his Realme without attributing to him any Sacerdotall right Wee had our Sacerdotall heads too in EnglaÌ„d without seeking for theÌ„ so far as Rome As the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reigns of our English Monarchs who of old was Nullius unquam Legati ditioni subjectus Never subject to the Iurisdiction of any Legate When the Pope sent over Guy Archbishop of Vienna into England as his Legate throughout Britaigne for the Apostolicall See It was received with wonder and Admiration of all men Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Episcopum Cantuariae All men did know that it was never heard in Britagne that any Man whatsoever had Apostolicall power over them but onely the Archbishop of Canterbury And accordingly the new Legate did speed so it followeth Wherefore as he came so he returned received as Legate by no man nor having exercised any part of his Legantine power This was the ground of that Letter of the English Bishops to the Pope That the Church of Canterbury might not be deprived of its dignity in his times and that he would neither Diminish it him self nor suffer it to be diminished As appeareth by the Popes acknowledgment in his answer But to come up close to the Difference The Question is not whether â—he Bishop of Rome have Authority to call Synods He is a Bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Prince in his own Dominions As a Bishop he may Convocate his Diocesse As a Metropolitan his Province As a Patriarch his Patriarchate under the pain of Ecclesiasticall Censure more or lesse compulsory according to that Degree of Coactive power which hath been indulged to him in these Distinct Capacities by former Soveraigns And as a Prince he may convocate his Subjects under Politicall paines The more these two powers are united and complicated the more terrible is the Censure And therefore our kings would have their Bishops denounce spirituall paines also against the Violaters of their great Charters Spirituall paiues are more heauy then Politicall but Politicall most commonly are more speedy then Spirituall And more certain Spirituall paines doe not follow an erring Key but Politicall doe Neither will I dispute at praesent whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or Beginning of Unity may lawfully call an Oecumenicall or Occidentall Councell by power purely Spirituall which consists rather in Advise then in Mandates properly so called or in Mandates of Courtesy not Coactive in the Exteriour Court of the Church considering the Division and Subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present Distractions of Christendome it seemeth not altogether in convenient Wee see the Primitive Fathers did Assemble Synods and â—ake Canons before there were any christian Emperours but that was by aurhority meerly spirituall they
had no coactive power to compell any man against his Will The Vttermost they could doe was to separate him from their Communion and to leave him to the Comming or Iudgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha The true Controversy then is this Whether the Bishop of Rome by his Legates have Coactive power in the exteriour Court to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England when he will where he will whom he will without their Consents and without the leave of the Soveraign Prince or King of England The Case being thus stated determineth it self Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England Wee see by often experience that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Councell in Italy within the Dominions of another Soveraign Prince or Republick although they be of his own Communion he must First aske leave and obtein leave before he can tell how to doe it Or how should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King Thus for point of right Now for matter of Fact First I doe utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Synod in the Brittish Island during the First eleven hundred yeares Or preside in any by his Legates Or confirm them by his Authority If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary he may cry guilty to the Vsurpation where of he is accused and hold his peace forever Secondly I doe confesse that after eleven hundred yeares The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civill combustions and prostituting the reputation of the Apostolicall See to their temporall ends did by the leave of our Kings not otherwise sometimes call Synods in England and preside in them The first Synod held in England by any of the Popes Legats was at London in the yeare 1125. by Ioannes Cremensis Which moved England into no smal indignation to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdome of England A Priest sitting president upon an high throne above Arch Bishops Bishops bats c. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference betwen affirmative and negative Presidents All which this proveth is that the King did give leave or connive at that time But it doth not prove it cannot prove a right to doe the same at other times when the King contradicteth it Further wee ought to take notice that there is a greate deale of difference between an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation Although in truth our Convocations be Synods So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them Convocari facias All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Synod but all the whole Clergy of the Kingdome were present at a Convocation either in their Persons or by their Proctors sufficiently authorised Secondly the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papall Synod as they had to the Acts of a royall Convocation sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates Lastly to drive the naile home and to demonstrate clearly the Grossenesse of this Papall usurpation it remaineth onely to shew that by the Ancient Lawes of England the calling of Convocations or Synods belonged properly to the King not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates And first by reason By the Lawes of England more ancient then the Popes intrusion no Roman Legat could enter into the Kingdome withont the Kings leave nor continue in it longer then he had his License as wee shall see hereafter and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor doe any Synodicall Act without the Kings leave Secondly by Records of the English Convocation itself that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are alwayes have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532. Thirdly by the Form of the Writt which hath ever been the same in all succeding Ages constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces The very Form speakes it English sufficiently For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church and the peace tranquility publik good and defence of our Kingdome and Subjects Wee command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe â—o us that you cause to be convocated with convenient speed in due manner all and singular Bishops of your Province Deanes and Priors of Cathedrall Churches c. And the whole Clergy of your diocesse and Province to meet before you c. Another Writ did alwayes issue from the King for the dissolution Wee command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation this very day in due manner without any delay c. Lastly by the concurring Testimonyes of all our Historiographers That all the space of time of eleven hundred yeares wherein the Popes did neither call Councells nor Preside in them nor Confirm them and after unto the very Reformation Our Kings did both call Councells and Preside in them and Confirm them and own their Lawes as I have shewed him by the Lawes of Ercombert Ina Withred Alfred Edwerd Athelstan Edmund Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor in my Vindication And particularly that Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Presided in a Councell in the Presence of Iohn the Popes Legate That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decreâ—um Regis The Kings decree That King Withred called a Councell at Becancelde and Presided in it and that the decrees of the Councell issued in his name and by his Authority Firmiter decernimus c. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon All this he pretendeth to have answered but it is with deep silence If he desire more Presidents and more witnesses he may have a cloud of Authors upon holding up his Finger to prove undeniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them and confirm their Acts with in his own Dominions but followed the steps of his Roâ—al Predecessors in all Ages from the first planting of religion untill his own dayes And not onely of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours The President of Charles the great is very conspicuous To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf In the French Synod I Charlemain Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Servants of God and my Princes have congregated the Bishops wich are in my Kingdome with the Priests to a Synod for the feare of Christ to Counsaile me how the Law of God and Ecclesiasticall Religion may be recovered which in the Dayes of forepassed Princes is dissipated and fallen
them cited at large by King Iames in his Apology for the Oath of A legiance But these Oaths land Homages and Regal Investitures as thâ—y were a Bond of Peace and Vnity between the King and his Clergy so they were a great Eyesore to the Bishops of Rome because they crossed their maine Designe to make them selves the onely Liege Lords of the Ecclesiasticks As appeareth by that severe Check which Adrian the fourth gave Frederick the first for Requiring Homage and Fealty of Bishops who are Gods and for holding their sacred hands in his hands It staied not here That Homage and Oath of Fidelity which Gregory the seventh and Calixtus did rob the King of their immediate Successour Paschalis the second did assume to himself as wee find by the unanimous consent of all Historiographers and by the Canon of Paschalis himself recorded by Gregory the ninth Significasli c. Thou signifiedst that Kings and the Peers of the Kingdome were moved with Admiration because the Pall was offered to Thee by our Apocrisiaries upon Condition to take that Oath which they brought Thee written from us c. The Admiration sheweth the novelty of it He confesseth there that the Oath was not established by the Canon of any councell but by Papall Authority and â—ustifieth it For feare of further evill That is Apostaring from the ObedieÌ„ce due to the Apostolick See The very Title doth assure us that it was an Oath of Fidelity and Obedience What manner of assurance can Soveraign Princes promise themselves of those Subjects who have sworn Allegiance and Obedience to a forrein Prince This Form at First was modest and moderate bounding the Obedience of Arch-Bishops by the Rules of the holy Fathers as wee find in the old Roman Pontificall but it was quickly changed from Regulas Sanctorum Patrum to Regalia Sancti Petri as wee find in the new Pontificall The Change in Letters was not great but in the Sense abhominable Semel falsus semper praesumitur falsus He who is apprehended in palpable forgery is alwayes deservedly suspected of forgery With what Face can Mr. Serjeant tell us that where the Method of immediate Tradition hath place it is impossible for encroachments to gaine Admittance Where were see such Hocus Pocus tricks plaid before our eyes in their Pontificall Bellarmine would perswade us that in St. Gregory the firsts time there was such an Oath of Obedience fully made to the Bishop of Rome But he doth either abuse him self or seeketh grossely to abuse us First the Oath mentioned in Saint Gregory was not an Oath of Obedience or allegiance but promissio cujusdam Episcopi haeresim suam anathematiz aniâ—s A promise of a Certeine Bishop anathematizing his haeresy or an Oath of abjuration Secondly the Oath mentioned by Saint Gregory was not imposed by his authority but taken freely by the converted Bishop to satisfie the world and to take away all suspicion of Hypocrisy ne non pura mentâ— seu simulate reversus existimer dictated to his owne Notary by the advise of his Clergy Notario meo cum consensu presbyterorâ—m Diaconorum atque Clericorum scribendum dictavi It was no Common Case of all Bishops neither did it comprehend any such obligation to mainteine the praetended royallties of S. Peter And as they extended the matter of their Oath so they did the Subject about an hundred yeares after in the time of Gregory the niuth enlarging it from arch-Arch-Bishops to all Prelates Bishops Abbats Priors And now what remaines but to cry up the Authority of the Canons above all Imperiall Lawes Cedant Arma Togae concedat Laurea Linguae As Bellarmine doth who denyeth the superiority of Princes above Clergymen Principes Seculares respectu Clericorum non sunt Principes Princes are no Princes of Clerkes c. Politicall lawes have no coactive obligation over Clerkes but onely directive The Civill lawes of Emperours must give place to the Canons of Popes What new Monster is this To receive Protection from the Lawes of Princes aud to acknowledge no Subjection to the Lawes of Princes If Princes should put Church men out of their ProtectioÌ„ as Bellarmine exempts them from all Coactive Obligation to the Lawes of Princes They would quickly find their Errour It is an honour to Princes to preserve to Church men their old Immunities but is it a Shame to Churchmen like Swine to eat the Fruit aud never looke up to the Tree from whence it falleth Wee have viewed the spoile Committed evidently when and by whom He whose office it was to praeserve all others from spoile could not preserve himself It is a Rule in Law Ame omnia Spoliaâ—us restiâ—ui debet Before all other things he that is spoiled ought to be restored to his Right And our old English Lawes are Diametrally opposite to these new Papall Vsurpations in all the parts of them First though the Kings and Kingdome of England were alwayes carefull to preserve the Privileges of Holy Church In all our Great Charters that was the first thing was taken Care for yet not as due by Divine Law and much lesse by the Lawes of the Pope which they never regarded but as Graces aud Privileges granted by the Kings of England aud therefore they excluded from benefit of Clergy such sort of delinquents as they thought fit as Proditores Traitours against the Person of the King Insidiatores viarum such as lay in wait to doe mischief upon the High-wayes Depopulatores agrorum such as depopulated the Land And the most severe Lawes that ever they made are the Statutes of Premunire and Provisors against Church-men for siding with the Bishop of Rome in his Vsurpations even to the forfeiture of their Goods and Lands their Losse of their Liberty and the putting them out of the Kings Protection Secondly our Lawes doe acknowledge every where that Homage and allegiance is alwayes due to the King from all Clergymen what soever Edward the first injoined all the Prelates upon their faith or Allegiance which they ought him They know no Fidelity or allegiance which is due to the Pope from any English man either Clergy man or Lay man but the just contrary that they are bound by their allegiance to fight for the King against the Pope for the redresse of these and such like Vsurpations In the fourteenth Yeare of Richard the second all the Spirituall Lords did answer unanimously That if any Bishop of England were excommunicated by the Pope for having executed the sentences and commandements of the King The same is against the King and his Crown And they will and ought to be with the King in these Cases lawfully and in all other Cases touching his Crown and his Regality as they be bound in their Allegiance Our Lawes know no Oath of Allegiance or Fealty due to any person but the King they make the King to be Advowee Paramont Supreme Lord and Patron Guardian Protector and Champion of thâ—
deposited at Rome as a stock for defence against the Turk and no otherwise But the time is effluxed since and the Princes have learned by Experience that the moneys have not been imployed againsâ— the Turkes but converted to other Vses c. The Emperour Charles the fifth was not of the same mind as appeareth by his Letter to Pope Adrian the sixth where in he reciteth the same fraud and requireth that the Tenths may be detained in Germany for that Vse for which they were first intended Lastly Henry the eighth and the Church and Kingdome of England were not of that mind nor intended to indure such an egregious cheat any longer so extremely contrary to the Fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and destructive to them By which Lawes the King himself who onely hath Legislative power in England may not compell his Subjects to pay any such Pensions without the Good will and Assent of the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Earls Barons Knights Burgesses and other Freemen of the land Much lesse can a forrain Prince or Praelate whatsoever he be impose any such payments by his own Authority This is that which is so often Condemned in our Statutes of Provisors Namely the imposing Pensions and exporting the Treasure of the Realme The Court of Rome is so far from any Pretense of Reparation that if their Predecessors were living they were obliged to make restitution These are all the Differences that are between us concerning the Patronage of the Church of EnglaÌ„d Yet now least he should urge that these Lawes alledged by mee are singular obsolete Lawes not Consonant to the Lawes of other Christian Kingdomes I will Paralell them with the Lawes and Liberties of France which he him self acknowledgeth to be a Catholick Country as they are recorded in two Authentick Bookes One of the Rights and Libertyes of the Gallican Church The Other The Defence of the Court of Paris for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Roman Court both printed by Authority First for the Patronage of the Church The fourth Liberty is The King hath power to Assemble or cause to be Assembled Synods Provinciall or Nationall and therein to treat of such things as concern Ecclesiasticall Order The seventh Liberty is The Prelates of the French Church although commanded by the Pope for what cause so ever it be may not depart out of the Kingdome without the Kings Commandement aâ—d License The eleventh Liberty is The Pope cannot impose Pensions in France upon any Benifices having Cure of Soules Nor upon any other but according to the Canons c. The Fourteenth Liberty is Ecclesiasticall persons may be Convented Iudged and sentenced before a secular Iudge for the First enormious Crime or for lesser offences after a relapse The fifteenth Liberty is All the Prelatest of France are obliged to swear Fealty to the King and to receive from him their Investitures for their Fees and Manours The nineteenth Liberty is Provisions Reservaâ—ioÌ„s expectative graces have no place in FraÌ„ce This is the brief summe of those Liberties which concern the Patronage of the Gallican Church agreeing perfectly with our old English Customes I shall shew him the same perfect Harmony between their Church Liberties and our English Customes the Assise of Clarendon the Statutes of Provisors and Premunire through out Either Mr. Serjeant must make the Gallican Church Schismaticall which he dare not doe and if I conjecture rightly hath no mind to doe or he must acknowledge our English Lawes to be good Catholick Lawes for Company Sect. I. Cap. VI. The next Vsurpation which offereth it self to our Consideration is the Popes Legislative power ouer the Church and Kingdome of England either in his person or by his Legates For the clearer understanding whereof the Reader in the first place may be pleased to take notice that we receive the ancient Canons of the Catholick church and honour them more then the Romanists themselves as being selected ouâ— of the Canons of Primitive Councells before the Roman Bishops did challenge any plenitude of Legislative power in the Church And especially of the first four General Councells of which King Iames said most truly that Publica Ordinum nostrorum Sanctione recâ—pta sunt They are received into our Lawes We acknowledge that just Canons of Councells lawfully Congregated and lawfully proceeding have power to bind the Conscience of Subjects as much as Politicall Lawes in themselves not from themselves as being humane lawes but from the Ordinance of God who commandeth Obedience of Subjects to all sorts of Superiours We receive the Canons of other Primitive Councells but not with the same degree of Reverence as wee doe the first four generall Councells No more did S. Gregory of old No more doth the Pope now in his solemne Profession of his Faith at his election to the Papacy according to the decree of the Councell of Constance That which restrained them restraineth us I am more troubled to thinke how the Pope should take himself to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch and yet take such a solemne Oath In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost to keep the Faitâ— of the Councell of Chalcedon to the least Tittle What the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon was in this greate Controversy about the Papacy may appeare by the six teenth Session and the Acclamation of the Fathers to the Sentence of the Iudges Haec justa Sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent c. This is a just Sentence These things wee all say These things please us all c Secondly we acknowledge that Bishops were alwayes esteemed the proper judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution that to make them Lawes the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needfull The former part of this caution is evident in Iustinians confirmation of the fifth Generall Synod Haec pro communi Pace Ecclesiarum Sanctissimarum statuimus haec sententiavimus sequentes Sanctorum PatruÌ„ dogmata c. These things wee ordaine these things wee have sentenced following the opinion of the Holy Fathers c. Quae Sacerdotio visa sunt ab Imperio confirmata Which were approved by the Clergy and confirmed by the Emperour The second part of the caution is evident out of the Lawes of William the conquerour Qui decimam deâ—inuerit per justitiaÌ„ Episcopi Regis si necesse fueriâ— ad soluttioneÌ„ arguatur c. Who shall detain his Tythe Let him be convinced to pay it by the justice of the Bishop and if it be needfull of the King For these things S. Austin preached and taught and these things that is both Tythes and jurisdictioÌ„ were granted froÌ„ the King the Barons and the People So hitherto there is no difference betweeÌ„ us they acknowledge that the King
Clarendon by the Popes Mandate they had interdicted the Lands of Earl Hugh and had published an Excommunication without the Kings License which the Pope had given out against him All these Lawes continued still in force and were never repealed in England neither before Henry the eighth began the reformation nor since by Queen Mary but have ever continued iu full force untill this day Lastly for Legates and Legantine courts there could be no Appeale in Eugland to any Legate or Nuncio without the Kings leave but all Appeales must be from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King as we see expresly by the statute of Assise of Clarendon formerly cited The Kings of England did ever deem it to be an unquestionable right of the Crown as Eadmerus testifieth to suffer none to excercise the Office of a Legate in England if the King him self did not Desire it of the Pope upon some great quarrell that could not be so well Determined by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops Which Privilege was consented unto by Pope Calixius By the Lawes of England if a Legate was admitted of Courtesy he was to take his Oath to doe nothing Derogatory to the King and his Crown Henry the sixth by the counsaile of Humphry Duke of Gloster the Protector protested against Pope Martin and his Legate that they would not admit him contrary to the Lawes and Libertyes of the Realm and dissented from whatsoever he did And when the Pope had recalled Cardinall Pooles Commission of Legate for England and was sending another Legate into England Queen Mary being very tender of her Kinsmans Honour for all her good affection to Rome was yet mindfull of this point of old English Law to cause all the Seaports to be stopped and all Letters Briefs and Bulls from Rome to be intercepted and brought to her Shee knew this was an old English not a new protestant Privilege Neither would she ever admit the new Legate to appeare as Legate in her presence Now let us see how these old English Customes doe agree with the French Liberties The Pope cannot send a Legate a latere into France with power to Reform Iudge Collate dispense except it be upon the desire or with the Approbation of the most Christian King Neither can the Legate execute his Charge untill he hath promised the King under his Oath upon his holy Orders to make no longer use of the Legantine power in the Kings Dominions then it pleaseth him That he shall attempt nothing Contrary to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church And it is lawful to Appeale from the Pope to a future Councell Another Liberty is The Commissions and Bulls of Popes are to be viewed by the Court of Parliament and registred and published with such Cautiōs as that Court shall Iudge expedient A third Liberty is Papall Bulls Sentences Excommunications and the like are not to be executed in France without the Kings command or Permission Lastly neither the King nor his Realm nor his Officers can be Excommunicated nor Interdicted by the Pope And as England and France so all the seventeen Provinces did enjoy the same Privileges as appeareth by the Placaet of the Councell of Brabant dated at Bruxelles May 12 An. 1653. Wherein they declare that it was notoriously true that the subjects of those Provinces of what State or Condition soever that is the Clergy as well as the Laity cannot be cited or convented out of the Land no not before the Court of Rome it self And that the Censures Excommunications c of that Court might not be published or put in execution without the Kings Approbation It seemeth that if the Pope had any judiciary power of old he must seek it nearer Home People had no mind to goe over the Alpes to seek for Justice And that Ordinance of Sainct Cyprian had place every where among our Ancestours Seing it is decreed by all and it is equall and just that every mans cause be heard there where the Crime was committed and a Portion of the Flock is assigned to every Pastor which he may rule and govern and must render an account of his Actions to the Lord It behoveth those whom wee are over not to run up and down nor to knock Bishops who agree well one◠against another by their Cunning and deceitfull Rashnesse but to plead their Cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Vnlesse the Authority of the African Bishops who have Iudged them already seem lesse to a few desperate and lost persons c. To say S. Cyprian meant not to condemne appeales but onely the bringing Causes out of Africk to Rome in the first Instance is a shift as desperate as that of those Fugitives For St. Cyprian telleth us plainly that the cause was already Iudged and sentence given in Africk The first Instance was past and this Canon was made against Appeales out of Africa to Rome Sect I. Cap VIII So from his Iudiciary power I come to Papal dispensations the last of the grosser Vsurpations of the Bishops of Rome Where I have a large Field offered me to expatiate in if I held it so pertinēt to the present Controversy The Pharisees did never dilate their Philacteries so much as the Roman Courtiers did their dispensative power The Pope dispenseth with Oathes with Vowes with Lawes he looseth from Sinnes from Censures from Punishments Is not this a strange Key which can unlock both sinnes and censures and Punishments and Lawes and Oaths and Vowes where there are so many and so different wards It is two to one that it proveth not a right Key but a Picklock Their doctrin of Dispensations was foule enough especially in such cases as concern the Law of God or Nature as Oaths Vowes Leagues Marriages Allegiance For either they make the dispensation to be onely Declarative and then the Purchaser is meerly Cheated who payes his money for nothing Or else they make all Contracts Leagues promises to be but Conditionall If the Pope approve them which destroyeth all mutuall trust and humane Society Or thirdly they make the Popes Dispensations to be a taking away of the matter of the Vow or Oath that is the Promise as if the Papall power could recall that which is past or make that to be undone to day which was done yesterday or that not to be promised which was promised Or lastly they doe dispense with the Law of God and Nature as they doe indeed what soever they pretend to the Contrary or all this kind of dispensations signify nothing But the Practise of Dispensations was much more foule Witnesse their Penitentiary Taxe wherein a man might see the Price of his Sin before hand Their common Nundination of Pardons Their absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance Their loosing of Princes from their solemne Leagues of Married people from the Bonds of
of Henry the eighth They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary and never were restored by any succeding Prince If there were any thing blame worthy in them let it dye with them I confesse I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another nor the swearing before hand to Statutes made or to be made But De mortuis nil nisi bonum Secondly I answer according to the equity aâ— my second ground that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over reached themselves and the truth in some expressions yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the Line and Level of Apostolicall Tradition Thirdly and principally I answer That our Ancesters meant the very same thing that we doe Our onely difference is in the use of the Words Spirituall Authority or Iurisdiction Which we understand properly of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall which extendeth no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spirituall Authority or Iurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court which in truth is partly Spirituall partly Politicall The interiour habit which enableth an Ecclesiasticall Iudge to Excommunicate or Absolve or degrade is meerly Spirituall but the Exteriour Coaction is Originally Politicall So our Ancestors cast out Externall Ecclesiasticall Coactive Iurisdiction The same doe wee They did not take away froÌ„ the Pope the power of the Keyes or IurisdictioÌ„ purely Spirituall No more doe wee To cleare the whole businesse We must know that in Bishops there is a threefold power The first of Order The second of Interiour jurisdiction The third of Exteriour jurisdictioÌ„ The first is referred to the Consecrating and Administring of the Sacraments The second to the Regiment of Christians in the interiour Court of Conscience The third to the Regiment of Christian people in the Exteriour Court of the Church Concerning the two former I know no Controversy between the Church of Rome and us but one Whether the Bishop of Rome alone doe derive his Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ and all other Bishops do derive theirs mediatly by him Yet I confesse this Controversy is but with a part of the Church of Rome For many of them are of our mind that all Bishops hold their Iurisdiction immediatly from Christ as well as the Pope And if it were otherwise it were the grossest absurdity in the world For thousands of Bishops in Christendome doe not at all derive their holy Orders from S. Peter or any other Roman Bishop either mediatly or immediatly especially in Asia and Africa but froÌ„ the other Apostles Must all these poore Bishops waÌ„t the Key of Iurisdiction and be but half Bishops to humour the Court of Rome For they never had ordination or Delegation or Commission from Rome either mediatly or immediatly yet the ChristiaÌ„ World hath evermore received them for true complete Bishops But we have a Controversy with some others who acknowledge no power of Governing in a Bishop but meerly directive neither more nor lesse then a Phisitian hath over his Patient To advise him to abstain from some meats because they are hurtfull to him which advise the Patient may either obey or reject without sinne But all the Schooles have tyed two Keys to the Churches Girdle the Key of Order and the Key of Iurisdiction and I doe not mean to rob my Mother of one of her Keys What will ye shall I come unto you with a Rod A rod is more then chiding The principall Branch of this Rod is Excommunication a Punishment more to be feared in the Iudgement of the Fathers then all earthly Paines The Spirituall Sword Like the cutting of a member in the Body naturall Or the out lawing of a Subject in the body Politicall It is a Question in the Schooles whether the Pastors Sentence in binding and loosing be onely Declarative or also â—perative As if such glorious promises and so great solemnity where with this power was given did imply a naked declaration Keys are not given to signify the doore is open or shut but to opeÌ„ or shut it indeed For my part I have alwayes esteemed this QuestioÌ„ to be a meer Logomachy or Contention about words They who make the Sentence onely declarative in respect of man doe acknowledge it to be operative in respect of God And they who make it to be Operative make it to be Operative by the power of God not of maÌ„ Whether the effect be attributed to the principall cause or to the Instrument being rightly understood it is both wayes true But this will not excuse our Innovators who have robbed the Church of one of her Keys the Key of Spirituall jurisdiction They are so Iealous of the honour of God that they destroy the beauty of the world and jumpe over the backes of all second causes and so they would make the holy Sacraments to be bare Sigus As it was said of old the sword of the Lord and of Gideon so we may say now the Key of Christ and his Pastor St. Paul taxeth the Corinthians for saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas I am of Christ What saith he is Christ divided Is Christ divided from his Ministers As it is an Errour on the one hand to depend so much upon Paul and Apollo and Cephas or any of them as not to depend principally upon Christ so it is an Errour on the other hand so depend so upoÌ„ Christ as to neglect Paul Apollo and Cephas In summe Christ made his Apostles not onely Lawiers to give Advise but Iudges to give Sentence He gave them not onely a Command but a Commission As my Father sent me so send I you That is I doe constitute you my Deputies and Surrogates with as ample power and commission as my Father gave me Bind Loose Remitt Retein whatsoever you doe on earth Clave non errante as long as your Key erreth not I confirm in heaven This is the Difference between the binding and loosing of Christ and the binding and loosing of his Ministers His power is Originall Primitive Soveraign Imperiall Their power is derivative Subordinate Delegate Ministeriall His Sentence is absolute ad Sentenâ—iandum simplicitâ—er Their Sentence is Conditionall ad Sententiandum si His Key never erreth Their Key may erre and many times doth erre To conclude the Apostles had a legislative power It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater Burthen then these Necessary things The Observation of Sunday was an Apostolicall precept so is the Order of Deacons They had a Iudiciary power and their Tribunalls Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three witnesses They had a dispensative power To whom I forgave any thing for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ But all this is onely in the interiour Court of Conscience The third power of Bishops is the power of exteriour IurisdictioÌ„ in the
as he calleth them do not baffle him and trip up his heeles I pleaded that Roman Catholicks did make the first separation He answers that this Plea doth equally acquit any Villain in the World who insists in the steps of his Forefather Villains Would no expression lower then this of Villains serve his turâ—e Who can help it If those Forefathers whom he intimates were Villains or any thing like Villains they were his Forefathers twenty times more then ours We inherit but one point in difference from them but he twenty The denomination ought to be from the greater part If any of them were deemed more propitious to us then the rest it was Henry the eighth or Archbishop Cranmer For both these we have their own confession that they were theirs First for Henry the eight We had a King who by his Lawes abolished the Authority of the Pope although in all other things he would follow the faith of his Ancestours And for Archbishop Cranmer heare another of them Cranmer the unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earle of Hartfords right hand and chiefe Assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecuter of the six Articles But to deale clearly with you there is not the same reason to imitate a notorious knave in his confessed knavery and to follow one who hath not onely a reasonable and just cause of contending but also the reputation of an honest man even in the judgement of his adverse party in all other things except onely therein wherein he is adverse to them Such were all the Actors in this cause by their Confession If we acknowledged that they who cast out Papall Vsurpations were Schismaticks for so doing he said something but we justify their Act as pious and virtuous and so his Comparison hath never a leg to run on I pleaded that it was a violent presumption of their Guilt and our Innocence when their best Friends and best able to Iudge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for theÌ„ who in all other things were great Zelots of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poore ProtestaÌ„ts with fire and fagot yet coÌ„demne theÌ„ and justify this seperarioÌ„ He minceth what I say according to his use and then excepteth The word best might have been left out They ever were accounted better Friends who remained in their former faith and the other Bishops looked upon as Schismaticks by the Obedient party Yet the Bishop of Chalcedon doubted not to call them the best of Bishops He should do well to tell us for his credits sake who those other Bishops were who looked upon these as Schismaticks Such is his ignorance in the State of these times that he dreameth of two parties an Obedient Party and a Rebellious Party whereas there were no Parties but all went one way There was not a Bishop nor an Abbot of Note in the Kingdome who did not vote the Kings Supremacy Four and twenty Bishops and five and twenty Abbots personally at one time There was not a Bishop nor any person of note in the Kingdome who did not take the Oath of the Kings Supremacy except Bishop Fisher and S. Thomas Moore who were imprisoned for treason either true or pretended before that Act was made for opposing the Succession of the Crown If he will not trust me let him trust the Veredict of our Vniversities A length we all agreed unanimously in this Sentencâ— and were of one accord that the Roman Bishop hath no greater Iurisdiction given him by God in holy Scripture in this Kingdome of England then any other Forrain Bishop The same Sentence was given by our Convocations or Synods The same Sentence was given by our Parliaments with the same concord and Vnanimity Nemine Dissentiente We had no parties but one and all Let him listen to his Friend Bishop Gardiner No Forrain Bishop hath any Authority among us all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most stedfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome And Ireland was unanimoâ—s herein with England All the great Families as well of the Irish as of the English did acknowledge by their Indentures to S. Anthony St. Leger then chiefe Governour of Ireland the Kings Supremacy and utterly renounce the Iurisdiction of the Pope Yet it was not the meaning of our Ancestours then and though some of them had been so minded it is not our meaning now to meddle with the power of the Keys or abridge the Bishop of Rome of any Iurisdiction purely spirituall or any Legacy which was left him by Christ or his Apostles but onely to cast out his usurped Coactive power in the exteriour Court without the leave of the Soveraign Prince which Christ and his Apostles did never exercise or dispose of or meddle with and to vindicate to our Kings the Politicall or externall Regiment of the Church by themselves and by their Bishops and other fit delegates as a Right due to all Christian Princes by the Law of God and nature But he attributeth all this to the Feare of the Clergy and the people and the Kings violent Cruelty and for proofe of what he saith citeth half a passage out of Doctor Hammond but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong Dr. Hammond speaketh onely of the first preparatory act which occasioned them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodicall way he applieth it to the subsequent act of Renunciation after debate Dr. Hammond said onely it is easy to be believed Mr. Serjeant maketh it a just Presumption or confest Evidence Dr. Hammond speaketh of no feare but the feare of the law the law of Premunire an ancient law made many ages before Henry the eighth was borne the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome but he misapplieth it wholy to the feare of he Kings violent Cruelty Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammonds Sense expressed clearly by himself that there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the feare being the Occasion of their debates but the reasons or Arguments offered in debate the causes as in all Charity we are to Iudge of their decision He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously If he did he could have told his Reader that this answer was taken away by me before it was made by him For two whole Kingdomes the Vniversities the Convocations the Parliaments to betray their Consciences to renounce an Article which they esteem necessary to salvation onely for the feare of a Premunire or the losse of their goods to forswear themselves to deny the Essence of their faith to turn Schismaticks as if they did all value their Goods more then their soules without so much as one to oppose it is a vain uncharitable
the Lawes and histories of his native Country If he had perused them diligently he might have observed how the Court of Rome and Crown of England were long upon their Gards watching one another and the one or the other gained or lost mutually according to the Vigour of their present Kings or Popes or according to the exigence of the times His seventh Objection that the like Lawes to ours in England were made in the Papacy it self but those could not be against the Popes Headship of the Church and his tenth Objection that then there never was a Papist Country in the world because equivaleÌ„t Lawes to ours were made in France Spaine Italy Sicily Gormany Poland c and his answer to my demand what law full Iurâ—sdiction could remaine to the Pope in England where such and such Lawes had force The same that remaines still to him in France Spaine Italy where the like lawes are in force in his last paragraph are a dish of unsavoury mushromes all sprung up from his own negligent mistake or wilfull Falsification let him chuse whether he will in confounding the Lawes of Mortmain with the other Lawes against the Popes Vsurpations Which I distinguished exactly both at the beginning of that discourse the Statute of Mortmain justified and at the Conclusion But to leave this Digression But besydes this grosse errour there want not other inconsequences and fallacies in his discourse as in his seventh Objection from the Popes particular Headship of his own Church to an Vniversall Headship over the Catholick Church and from an Headship of order to a Monarchicall Headship of power and in his tenth Objection from like lawes to the same Lawes from Lawes made to Lawes duely observed We had Lawes made against Non-conformists in England will he conclude thence that we have no Non-conformists in England the Argument would hold better the Contrary way Ex malis moribus bonae leges And in his last Paragraph from Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court to Iurisdiction purely Spirituall in the Court of Conscience and from Coactive Iurisdiction with the leave of the Prince to the same without Leave Wee see all Roman Catholick Countries doe stint the Popes Coactive Iurisdiction over their Subjects more or lesse according to their severall Liberties which they could not doe at all if he held it by Christs own Ordination His eighth Objection that upon this new Law made by Henry the eighth England stood at another distance then formerly from Rome is a Fallacy non causae pro causa when a false cause is assigned for a true cause Our just Lawes are not the right cause of our distance from Rome but the Popes unjust Censures and that Character which some of our Countrimen give of us But this distance is greater among the Populacy then between the Estates who do not much regard the Popes Censures either in making or observing of Leagues To his ninth Objection in his order and his last in my order that this Posiâ—â—on takes away the Question and makes all the Controvertists in England on both sides talke in the aire because it makes the Pope to have had no Authority there to be cast out I answer I wish it did but it doth not The Pope had Authority there and Authority usurped fit to be cast out notwithstanding our former good Lawes But yet I must confesse this Position doth much change the Question from spirituall Iurisdiction in the inner Court to Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court and makes him and many other such Controvertists talk in the aire who dispute onely about Headships and First Moverships when the true Controversy lieth in point of Interest and profit Sect. 4. That the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrein Iurisdiction for the first six hundred years and so ought to continue After I had shewed the Equality of the Apostles except onely a Priority of Order and that the Supremacy of power did not rest in any single Apostolicall College that Nationall Patriarchs were the highest Order constituted by the Apostles in the Church and how some Patriarchs came to be advanced above others with the true dignity or Preheminence of Apostolicall Churches the summe of all the rest of this Section might be reduced to a Syllogisme Those Churches which were exempted from all forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600 years cannot be subjected to any forrain Iurisdiction for the future against their own wills But all the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first six hundred yeares The Major Proposition was proved by me undeuiably out of the first Generall Councell of Ephesus to which Mr. Serjeant hath objected nothing Next I proved the Minor First by Prescription Affirmanti incumbit probatio The burthen of the proofe in Law resteth upon the Affirmer but they are not able to shew so much as one single act of Iurisdiction which ever any Bishop of Rome did in Brittaign for the first six hundred yeares Secondly I proved it from the Antiquity of the Britannick Church which was ancienter then the Roman it self and therefore could not be subject to the RomaÌ„ from the beginning Thirdly because the Britannick Churches sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman and therefore were not subject to the Roman Foâ—rthly because they had their Ordinations ordinarily at home which is an infallible sign of a free Church subject to no Forrein Iurisdiction Lastly because they renounced all Subjection to the Bishop of Rome I am forced to repeat thus much to let the Reader see the contexture of my discourse which Mr. Serjeant doth whatsoever he can to conceale or at least to confound and disjoint Out of this he picketh here and there what he pleaseth First he pleadeth that my Title is the Vindication of the Church of England but the Church of England can derive no title from the Britannick or Scottish Churches He never read or quite forgetteth the State of the QuestioÌ„ I will help his memory Let him read the Vindication by the Church of England we understand not the English Nation alone but the English dominion including the British and Scotish or Irish Christians So at unawares he hath yielded the Bishopricks of Chester Hereford Worcester for all these were Suffragans to Carleon Wales Cornwall Ireland Scotland with all the adjacent Ilands that is to say two third parts of the English Dominion Secondly he pleadeth that for this many hundred yeares they acknowledged the Popes Authority as well as the Church of England I answer that this will doe him no good nor satisfy the Generall Councell of Ephesus at all which hath decreed expresly in the case of the Cyprian Prelates and they Command the same to be observed in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors and if any doe occupy another Province that in this case let him restore it
that the Canons of the Fathers be not sleighted But they who never exercised one Act of IurisdictioÌ„ in the Brittannick Iland for the first 600 years cannot pretend that it was under their power in the time of the Councell of Ephesus or long after It was not for nothing that he concealed the words of the Councell Yet he asketh what do the Scots concern the Church of Englands Vindication Do they not Are not the Scots a part of the Britannick Ilands and so comprehended under the name of the Church of England in this Question Besides he must know that I challenge some Interest among the Irish Scots from whom I derive my Episcopall Orders Against the Irish Ordination never any man had any pretense of Exception to this Day The Irish were the ancient and principall Scots and the Britannick Scots a Colony derived from them That they are the ancient Scots who did join with the Britons in not submitting to the See of Rome I shall shew him clearly from the Authority of Lawrence Successor to S. Austin in his Archbishoprick and the other English Bishops of that Age in their Letter to the Bishops of Scotland To conclude he tooke not onely Care of the new Church collected of the English but of the old Inhabitants of Britain and also of the Scots who inhabit Ireland the next Island to Britain For assoone as he knew that their life and profession in their Country was like that of the Brittons in Britany not Ecclesiasticall c. That is to say not Roman He seeth I had some reason not to â—eave out the Scots Besides the Britons the Scots and the Irish I urged that the great Kingdomes of Morcia and Northumberland were converted by the Scots and had their Religion and Ordination first from the Scots afterwards among themselves without any forrein dependence and so were as free as the Britons He saith all the force lieth in these words without any Forrein dependence wich I obtrude â—pon them without any proofe His mistakes are infinite my proofe is Demonstrative They who had their first Ordination from the Scots and ever after were Ordeined among themselves never had any Ordination from the Bishop of Rome and consequently were never subject to the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome For it is a Maxime in the Law and is most evident in the case of the Cyprian Bishops in the Councell of Ephesus that the right of â—urisdiction doth follow the right of Ordination And if it were not so yet what man in his right wits could Imagin that the Scots who were the Converters should renounce Subjection to the Bishop of Rome themselves and teach their Converts the Mercians and Northumbrians to submit to the Bishop of Rome But if I had said no more but onely that they were without any forrein dependence it had been enough on my part It belongeth not to me to prove a Negative and such a continued Negative as this is but the burthen of the proofe resteth wholy upon him both in reason and Law to prove his Affirmative that the MerciaÌ„s and Northumbrians did depend upon the Bishop of Rome in those dayes in point of practise for Ordination and Iurisdiction which he is not able to doe What he addeth that I said Ordination is nothing at all to Iurisdiction is for want of Vnderstanding because he is not able to distinguish between the right of Ordination and the Act of Ordeining We attribute to the Scots the Act of Ordeining not a Superiour right of Ordination In the next place I urged that a world of British Christians staid behind among the Saxon Conquerours every where all over England such whom they had no cause to feare for their power Activity or Influence upon others which poore Conquered Christians had a right to the just Privileges of their Ancestours He would perswade us First that all of them or all except some few fled into Wales or Cornwall What to do To be repacked there as herrings Or like Camelions to live upon the aire and leave all the rest of the Kingdome desolate It was not ten or twenty nor a hundred nor aâ— thousand little Vessells could bring over Saxons enough with their wifes and Children and Servants to plant the Kingdomes of England We see dayly that the very Armies of such Conquerours doe consist for the greater part of Natives and that it is not their forrain Numbers but their Military Skill and resolution which gaineth them the Victory Looke upon all the Kingdomes of the world Italy Spain France England c. and what are they but mixed Societies of Forreiners and Natives Conquerers and Conquered persons now iâ—corporated with little or no distinction by long Tract of time After the Norman Conquest hundreds of English inhabited England for one Norman In the beginning of the late Insurrection in Ireland notwithstaÌ„ding those great nâ—mbers which came over daily into Ireland and Scotland to seeke for Plantations for thirty or forty yeares together yet there were ten Irish for one English and Scotch and yet we do not find that these Saxon warres were so bloudy as the Irish warres or that either they persecuted the persons of the Britons with Cruelty or so much as demolished their Churches But he supposeth that if there were any such British Christians yet they became subject to the Pope I believe some of them were subject to the Pope as to the Bishop of their Mother Church and all of them as to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church that is to be guided by his grave advise and direction but I deny that ever the Saxon Bishops were subject to the Pope as to an absolute Monarch by Christs own ordination or that the Pope enjoyed the Soveraign Patronage of the Saxon Church or the Supreme Legislative Iudiciary or dispensative power over it This the Saxon Kings and their Bishops under theÌ„ ever enjoyed as the Britons did before them and this is all which our Kings desire or we claime for them If he have any thing to say to this point let him bring Authorities not words He saith This is all one as if some few men setling by accident in France should pretend an exemption from the French Lawes and expect English Privileges Nay it is cleare contrary as if some French men comming into Britaine and planting and propagating there should expect the British Privileges to their Posterity So the Saxons planting in Britain so soone as their Posterity was capable of them by becomming Christians might justly claime the Liberties and Privileges of British Christians I said the Saxon Conquest gave them as good title to the Privileges as to the Lands of the Britons He stileth it a rare reason as if I meant that Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction were a thing of that nature to be won by the sword Or rather as if he meant Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court and Iurisdiction purely Spirituall which Christ left unto his Church is all one I
doe not mean that power purely Spirituall is to be won by the Sword but I believe that exemtion from Coactive power in the exteriour Court is to be won by the sword So the Scots eased the Archbishop of York of the trouble of a great part of his Province◠So just Conquerours may and doe often change the Externall Policy of the Church for the publick good He bids me shew that the English Bishops were impowered by the British Bishops or else let me confesse that they could inherit no Privileges from them I can shew him that I my self was impowered and did receive my Episcopall Ordination from the ancient Scotch Bishops by an uninterrupted Succession And many English Bishops have received their orders mediatly or immediatly from the British Bishops I said most truely that before he can allege the Authority of the Councell of Sardica for Appeales to Rome he must renounce the divine institution of the Papacy or at least the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to the Papacy because that Canon submitted it to the good pleasure of the Fathers and grounded it upon the Memory of St. Peter not the Institution of Christ. The reason of this Consequence is most evident For the Councell of Sardica would not nor could have submitted that which is the Popes right by Christs own Ordination to the good pleasure of the Fathers whether he should have it or not nor would have assigned their respect to the Memorie of Saint Peter for a ground of that for which they had the Commandement of Christ But the Councell of Sardica did submit the Popes right to receive Appeales to the good pleasure of the Fathers Placetne doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter Therefore they did not hold this right of the Pope to receive Appeales to be due to the Pope by Christs own Ordinance or Commandement This he is pleased to call a flat Falsification of the Councell there being not a word in it either concerning Papall power it self or its institution but concerning Appeales onely I am grown pretty well acquainted with his Falsifications Did I say there was any thing in the Councell concerning the Papacy or Institution of it If I did let him tell us where and when or els it is his own Falsification But by his own Confession there is something in the Councell concerning Appeales to the Pope and this is submitted by the Councell to the good pleasure of the Fathers and no higher ground assigned for it then the respect to the Memory of St. Peter yet this right of receiving Appeales is made by him and all his Partakers an Essentiall Branch of Papall power Therefore if he and his Partakers say true the Councell of Sardica did submit an Essentiall Branch of Papall Power or Papall power in part to the good pleasure of the Fathers which is as much as to say they held it not to be of divine Institution By this time I hope he understandeth my meaning better He presumeth that some British Bishops sate in Councell of Sardica it may be Athanasius intimateth as much He presumeth that they assented to the Sardican Canon about Appeales It may be or it may not be I should rather assent to their voting to acquit Athanasius who testifieth of them that they were right to the Nicene Faith But surely among all the Subscibers in the Sardican Councell there is not one British Bishop named And in the Synodall Letters of the Councell it self wherein they reckon all the Provinces Britain is not named But what is the right of receiving Appeales to an Vniversall Monarchy or the decree of a Councell to Christs own Ordination If we would be contented to abrogate our old Lawes and give the Bishop of Rome leave to execute that power which the Sardican Fathers did give him he would scorn it and much more their manner of giving it Si vobis placet if it please you or of it seem good to your Charity let us honour the Memory of St. Peter as both the Latin and the Greek Edition have it I said that the Councell of Sardica was no Generall Councell after the Eastern Bishops were departed not out of any ill will to Athanasius or favour to the Arrians as for Arrianisme the Sardican Fathers did no more then the Nicene had done before them but out of another Consideration because the presence of the five great Patriarchs with their respective Bishops or at least the greater part of them was ever more held necessary to the being of a Generall Councell as Bellarmine himself confesseth that the seventh Synod judged the Councell of Constantinople against Images to have been no General Councell because it had not Patriarchs enough If the Councell of Sardica had been a Generall Councell why doe St. Gregory the great Isiodore and Venerable Bede quite omit it out of the number of Generall Councells Why did St. Austin Alypius and the African Fathers sleight it And which is more then all this why doe the Eastern Church not reckon it among their seven Generall Councells nor the western Church among their eight first Generall Councells To Conclude why did the English Church leave the Sardican Councell out of the number of Generall Councells in the Synod of Hedtfelde in the yeare 680 and embrace onely these for Generall Councells untill that day The Councell of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus the Councell of Chalcedon and the second of Chalcedon Here he may see a plain reason why I say the Councell of Sardica was never incorporated into the English Lawes I would know whether he or I be of the old English Religion in this point The five First Generall Councells were incorporated into the Law of England but the Councell of Sardica was none of them Therefore no Generall Councell I have given him a further account concerning this Councell Sect. 1 c. 7. to which I refer him I said and I said most truely that the Canons of the Sardican Councell touching Appeales were never received in England nor incorporated into our English Lawes For proofe hereof I bring him an evident demonstration out of the Fundamentall Law of England as it is recorded in that famous Memoriall of Clarendon All Appeales in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and if the Archbishop failed to doe Iustice the last complaint must be to the King to give Order for redresse Our Ancestours had not so much respect for Pope Iulius nor thought appeales to Rome any honour to the Memory of St. Peter I said the Canon of the Councell of Sardica was cōtradicted after by the Great Councell of Chalcedon He rejuneth that I neither thought the words worth citing nor the Canon where the Abrogation of the Sardican Canon is found worth mentioning Pardon me I said nothing of Abrogation but I did say it contradicted it and for proofe of the
truth of what I said take the very words of two Canons of that Councell But if a Clerk have a cause against his own Bishop or against another Bishop let him be Iudged by the Synod of the Province but if a Bishop or a Clerke have a Complaint against the Metropolitan of the same Province let him repaire either to the Primate of the Diocesse or the See of their royall City of Constantinople aend let him be judged there Wee see every Primate that is to say every Patriarch in generall in his own Diocesse or Patriarchate and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular out of his own Diocesse is equalled by the Councell of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth Canon that if there shall happen any Difference concerning the Possessions of the Churches it shall be lawfull to them who affirm themselves to be grieved to sue before the Holy Synod of the Province but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan let him be judged by the Primate of the Diocesse or by the holy See of Constantinople I have read those silly Evasions which your greatest Schollars are forced to make use of for answers to these downright Canons Sometimes by Primate of the Diocesse which signifieth all Patriarchs they understand and the Pope Do men use such improper expressions which no man can understand in penning of Lawes Is it not a great Condiscension for the Visible Monarch of all Christendome to stoupe to so meane a Title as the Primate of one single Diocesse But alas it will do him no good For if it were taken in this sense it were the most uniust Canon in the world to deprive all Patriarchs of their Patriarchall Iurisdiction except the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople The Councell which is so carefull to preserve the Bishop his right and the Metropolitan his right could not be so carelesse to destroy Patriarchall right or the Patriarchs themselves who were present at the making of this Canon so stupid to joine in it At other times they tell us that this is to be understood onely of the first Instance not of Appeales This is weaker and weaker What hath a Metropolitan to doe with private causes of the first instance out of his own Bishoprick What have the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople to doe to Iudge causes of the first Instance in other Patriarchates The case is cleare if any man be grieved by his Bishop he may appeale to his Metropolitan and a Synod and if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan he may appeale to his Patriarch And if this absurd sēse which they Imagin were true yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive Appeales from all parts of the world as well as the Bishop of Rome Let them winde and wrest and turn things as they can they shall never be able to reconcile the Papall Pretensions with the Councell of Chalcedon I have neither changed my mind nor my note concerning Eleutherius his Letter to King Lucius I did I doe esteem it to be of dubious Faith So much I intimated if it be not counterfeit So much he intimated as much as we have Records in our Histories Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over so often as we may take occasion Thus far then we are of accord but in the rest we differ wholy He is positive as much as we have Records the Popes Authority doth appeare I am as positive as much as we have Records the Kings Authority doth appeare For if those Records be true Eleutherius left the Legislative part to King Lucius and his Bishops This was enough to answer him He addeth though our Faith relieth on immediate Tradition for its certain Rule and not upon Fragments of old Authors that is in plain English upon his bare word without any Authority How should a man prove ancient Tradition but by Authors Yet after all this flourish he produceth us not one old Author but St. Prosper a stranger to our affaires and him to no purpose◠who saith onely what he heard in Italy That Pope Celestine sent St. German in his own stead to free the Britons from Pelaginisme and converted the Scots by Palladius If all this were as true as Gospell it signifieth just nothing I have shewed formerly that there is no Act of Iurisdiction in it but onely of the Key of Knowledge He rejoineth that he relied on these words vice sua in his own stead which sheweth that it belonged to his Office to doe it Why should it not The Key of Order belongeth to a Bishop as well as the Key of Iurisdiction And more especially to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as Pope Celestine was and in such a case as that was the Pelagian Controversy to testify the Apostolicall Tradition he was bound by his Office to doe it and he trusted S. German to doe it in his place All this is nothing to the purpose there is no Act of Iurisdiction in the Case but of Charity and Devotion Yet if it were not altogether impertinēt to the purpose we have in hand I should shew him that there is ten times better ground to believe that it was done by a French Synod then by Pope Celestine not out of an obscure Author but out of Authentick undoubted Histories as Constātius in the Life of S. German Venerable Bede Mathew Westminster and many others Is it not strange that they being so much provoked are not able to produce a proofe of one Papall Act of Iurisdiction done in Britain for the first six hundred years Here he catcheth hold at a saying of mine which he understandeth no more then the Man in the Moone that all other rights of Iurisdiction doe follow the right of Ordination which he taketh as though I meant to make Ordination it self to be an Act of Iurisdiction though I deny it and distinguish it from it To make the Reader to understand it we must distinguish between actuall Ordination and a right to ordaine Actuall Ordination where there was no precedent Obligation for that person to be ordeined by that Bishop doth imply no Iurisdiction at all but if there was a precedent right in the Ordeiner to ordein that man and a precedent Obligation in the person Ordeined to be ordeined by that Bishop then it doth imply all manner of Iurisdiction suitable to the Quality of the Ordeiner as if he were a Patriarch all Patriarchall Iurisdiction if he were a Metropolitan all Metropoliticall Iurisdiction if he were a Bishop all Episcopall Iurisdiction And the Inference holdeth likewise on the Contrary side that where there is no right precedent to Ordein nor Obligation to be ordeined there is no Iurisdiction followeth but I shewed out of our own Histories and out of the Roman Registers so far as they are set down by Platina that the Bishop of Rome had no right to ordein our British Primates but that they
were ordeined at home and therefore the Bishop of Rome could have no jurisdiction over them I said no more of Phocas but this that the Popes preteÌ„ses were more from Phocas then St. Peter He referreth me to his answer to Doctor Hammond And I refer him to Doctor Hammond for a reply as Impertinent to my present businesse When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad Meditation upon this Subject I confesse ingenuously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Popes Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had been a cause of my trouble proved a meanes of my â—inall Satisfaction For seing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spirituall Monarch The reasons of my Resolution I have set down and received no answer Yet it shall not seem irksome to me to repeat them as desiring nothing but the discovery of the truth First I argue thus The Soveraign Government and the Subordinate Government of the same person in the same Society or body Politick or Ecclesiastick is inconsistent But the Popes pretended Monarchy or Supremacy of power over the whole Church and his Patriarchall Dignity in the same Church are a Soveraign and Subordinate Government of the same person in the same body Ecclesiastick The reason of the Major is because Soveraign power is single of one person or Society but this subordinate power is conjoint of fellow Patriarchs Soveraign Power is Vniversall but this subordinate power is particular And therefore as a Quadrangle cannot be a Triangle nor a King a Sherif of a Shire or a President of a Province within his own Kingdome so neither can the same person be an Vniversall Monarch and a particular Patriarch Secondly the Spirituall Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is pretended to be by divine right his Patriarchall power is confessedly by humane right but a Spirituall Soveraignty by divine right and an inferiour dignity by humane right are inconsistent As it is absurd to say that God should make a man a Prince and after the people make him a Peer or God should give him a Greater Dignity and afterwards the people coÌ„ferre a lesse upon him Thirdly a Soveraignty above the CanoÌ„s besides the Canons against the Canons to make them to abrogate them to suspend them with a Non obstante to dispense with them at pleasure where the Canon gives no dispensative power and a Subjection to the Canons to be able to do nothing against them are inconsistent But suâ—h a Soveraign Power is above the Canons and such a Patriarchall power is subject to the Canons Therefore they are inconsistent All the answer he offereth to these two Instances the one that Bishop Vsher was at once Bishop of Armagh and as such the Bishop of Derries superiour I answer first he mistaketh much The Primacy of Ireland and the Archbishoprick of Armagh are not two diâ—â—inct dignities but one and the self same dignitie but the Monarchicall power of the Pope by divine right and his Patriarchall power by Humane right are two distinct dignities Secondly the Primate of Ireland is not indowed with Monarchicall power but all the difficulty here lieth in the Conjunction of Monarchicall power and Subordinate power His other Instance must a person leave of to be Master of his own Family because he is made King and his Authority extendeth over all England I answer first his Argument is a transition into another kind or an excursion from one kind of power to another from Politicall power in the Commonwealth to an Oeconomicall power in the Family Secondly it is one thing to make an inferiour person a King and another thing to make a King a Constable or to make Soveraignty and Subordination consist together When a King doth discharge the place of a Generall of an Army he acquireth no new dignity or power or place no man calleth him my lord Generall but he doth it as a King by his Kingly power to which no higher or larger power can be added but the Bishop of Rome did not doth not exercise Patriarchall power by virtue of his Monarchy by divine Ordination but by humane right first by Custome or prescription and then by authority of the Councell of Nice All the world seeth and acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome hath more power in his Bishoprick then he hath out of it in the rest of his Province aÌ„d more power in his Province then he hath out of it in his Patriarchate and more power in his own Patriarchate then he hath in anothers Patriarchate but if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination he should have the same power every where if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination then all Patriarchall power should flow from him as from the Originall Fountain of all Ecclesiaasticall honour But the Contrary is most apparent that all the Patriarchs even the Roman himself did owe their Patriarchall power to the Customes of the Church and Canons of the Fathers These are the reasons why I conceive Monarchicall Power and Patriarchall power to be inconsistent in one and the same persoÌ„ But the Pope was coÌ„fessedly a Patriarch therefore no Monarch The next thing which commeth to be observed is his ExceptioÌ„s to Dionothus the learned Abbat of Bangor his aÌ„swer to Austin professing Canonicall Obedience to the Archbishop of CaerleoÌ„ in his own name aÌ„d the name of the British Church and disclaiming all ObedieÌ„ce except of Brotherly love to the Bishop of Rome His first exception was the naming of the Bishop of Rome Pope without any Addition of Name or place contrary to the use of those times For aÌ„swer I committed him and his Friend Bellarmine together WheÌ„ the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome onely is to be understood as appeareth out of the Councell of Chalcedon the most blessed and Apostolicall man the Pope doth command us this without adding Leo or Rome or the City of Rome or any other thing He sleighteth Bellarmine and rebuketh me for folly to think that Catholick writers cannot disagree and answereth the Councell that thought the word Pope be alone without Addition Yet which is equivalent the Comitant Circumstances sufficiently indigitate the person For the words were spokeÌ„ by Boniface the Popes Vicegerent As if there were not the same indigitating CircuÌ„stances here as well as there the words being spoken by Austin the Popes Legate and Vicar as well as Boniface in the name of Pope Gregory to the Britons which were answered here by Dinoth His second exception to Dinoths Testimony is that there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes the See being removed from Caerleon to Menevia or S. Davids fifty yeares before this That it was removed before this I acknowledge but how long before this is uncertain Some Authors make S. Gregory and S. David to have died
rejected be the Legacies of Christ or Papall VsurpatioÌ„s is not capable of such rigorous Demonstration but dependeth upon Testimony which Logicians call an Inartificiall way of arguing But if by rigorous Demonstration he uâ—derstand convincing proofes those grounds which I offer in this Section do contain a rigorous Demonstration That Discipline which is brimfull of intollerable Rapine and Extortion and Simony and Sacrilege which robbeth Kings and Subjects Ecclesiasticall and Secular of their just rights which was introduced into the Church of England eleven hundred yeares after Christ which hath a Malignant Influence upon the Body Politick which is Destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which in stead of securing men in peace doth thrust them into Manifest and manifold Dangers both of soule and body which is contrary to Generall Councells and the ancient Liberties of particular Churches qua talis as it is such is no Legacy of Christ but ought to be purged and reformed from all such abuses and VsurpatioÌ„s But such is that Papall Discipline which the Bishop of Rome excercised in EnglaÌ„d before the Reformation and lesse then which they will not goe and such are all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out The truth of this AssertioÌ„ I have made manifest in my Vindication c. 6 and this is the place of a further examination of it if he did discharge the part of a faire solid Disputant to leave his windy Invectives which signify nothing to the cause but to his own shame and to proceed closely and ingenuously to the investigation of truth without prejudice or partiality But on the Contrary he minceth my grounds and concealeth them and skippeth over whatsoever disliketh him and choppeth them and chaÌ„geth them and confoundeth them that I caÌ„not know mine own Conceptions againe as he hath dressed them aÌ„d disordered them and mutilated them I proposed five distinct Grounds of our ReformatioÌ„ aÌ„d casting out so many Branches as we did of Papall power if he dealt like a just Adversary he should pursue my Method step by step but he reduceth my five grounds into three that between two Methods he may conceale and smother whatsoever he hath no disposition to answer as he dealeth with many points of weight and moment and particularly with all those Testimonies and instances I bring to prove the intolerable extortions and manifold Vsurpations and malignant Influence of the Roman Coutt upon the Body Politick and Ecclesiastick being much the greater part of my discourse But I doe not altogether blame him for they are so foule that a man can find small credit or contentment in defending them For once rather then loose his Company I will pursue his Method Let us give him the hearing He reduceth my five grounds to three first such as entrench upon Eternity and Conscience May not any Heretick object that the Church imposed new Articles of faith c. or complain of new Creeds when she addeth to her publick Professions some points of Faith held formerly Might not he Complaine of perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for Surplesses c Might not he pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks were good Christians and that the Church was Tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might he not shuffle together Faith with Opinion and falsly allege as you doe here you were forced to approve the Popes Rebellion against Generall Councells and take Oaths to maintain Papall Vsurpations This is all the Answer I get of this brave Disputant as if the unjust complaints of the Puritans did satisfy the just exceptions of the Protestants It is probable enough that he him self was one of our Brother Puritans in those dayes otherwise he could not well have talked so wildly of perill of Idolatry from Surplesses His discourse is so sleight and impertinent that I will not vouchsafe any answer but leave it to the Reader to compare my Vindication and Reply with his Rejoinder That they have added new Essentialls to Faith is fully evinced against them in this Treatise Sect. 1. cap. 11. What our Iudgement is concerning their Idolatry he shall find exactly set down in my answer to Militier Pa. 133. As for the Oaths of Fidelity which every Bishop must make to the Pope he may satisfy him self Sect. 1. Cap. 5. and see the From of it cap 7. Or if he Desire to see a later form let him take this I Henry Archbishop of Canterbury will be faithfull and Obedient to St. Peter from this houre as formerly and to the holy Apostolick Church of Rome and to my Lord Pope Alexander the sixth and his Successours I will give no counsaile nor consent nor act any thing towards the losse of their lifes or members or liberty I will discover their Counsailes to no man to their prejudice which they have communicated to me by themselves or their Messengers I will help them to retein and defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter saving my Order against all men I will entertein the Popes Legates honorably going and comming and help them in their necessities I will visit the Papall Court every yeare if it be on this side the Alpes and every two yeares if it beyond the Alpes unlesse the Pope dispense with me So help me God and the Holy Gospell What fidelity can a King expect from a Subject who hath taken this Oath if the Pope please to attempt any thing against him If the Popes Superiority above a Generall Councell be but held as an indifferent Opinion in their Church and not a point of Faith as he intimateth yet it is such an Opinion as he dare not contradict it is fere communis it is almost the Common OpinioÌ„ of all RomaÌ„ Catholicks if Bellarmine say true and fere de fide almost a point of Faith upoÌ„ which modern Popes and Councells are accorded It is determined expresly in their last Generall Councell of LateraÌ„ that the Bishop of Rome alone hath Authority over all Councells Were these all the grounds he could find which entrench upon Eternity and Conscience He might have found more that by means of Papall abuses there described hospitality was not kept the poore not susteined the word not preached churches not adorned the Cure of soules neglected divine Offices not performed Churches ruined He might have found Oaths Customes writings grants statutes rights privileges to have been not onely weakened but exinanited by the Popes infamous Messenger called Non obstance And all this attested by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the whole Common-wealth of England But it is no matter whether he take notice of it or not whilest he answereth nothing He faith my second sort of Grounds are those which relate to Temporall inconveniences and injuries to the State by reason of the Popes pretended encroachments which I huddle together in big Terms Do I huddle theÌ„ together Nay I haÌ„dled them distinctly under three heads or notions First the intolerable
receive Tenths and First fruits and Oaths of Fidelity and concerning the Supreme Legislative Dispensative and Iudiciary power in all things perteining to the Externall Regimeut of the Church To all this neither the Bishop of Chalcedon nor Mr. Serjeant either in his former Answer or in this rejoinder although provoked have offered one word of Answer This Plea doth utterly destroy their pretense of Divine right and of uninterrupted Tradition for all these Branches of Papall power Can any man be so stupid as to Imagin that to be of divine right which was first tacked into the Church with so much Opposition after eleven hundred yeares or that to be grounded upon perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition which hath been opposed in all Ages since it was devised in all places by all sorts of persons Kings and their Parliaments and Councells Synods and Vniversities Divines and Lawiers What shamefull Tergiversation is this which no ingenious Adversary could be guilty of but out of invincible necessity Thus he served me where I produced all our old English Lawes Thus he served me where I produced their own Authours to testify the intolerable extortions and Vsurpatiōs of the Romā Court Thus he serveth me here and in place of so many lawes and Proclamations and Placaets and Synodall Acts and Iudgements of Vniversities he shuffleth in so many of his fiddle-faddle Contradictions which are not all worth a deafe Nut. If it were not that I have proceeded so far already and Toto devorato Bove turpe est in Cauda deficere I would not Vouchsafe to answer them but with Contempt Thus he begins Nine or ten self Contradictions in one Section He speaketh modestly if there be one there are nine hundred This word in effect saith he deserves a Comment It hath a Comment wherein his feigned Contradictions were satisfyed before they were hatched by him the more uningenuous person he to take no notice of it He may find it in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon cap. 7. s. 2. pa. 243. Other Princes of the Roman Communion have made lawes as well as we to renounce and abrogate all those branches of Papall Authority which we cast out that is onely Papall Vsurpations but neither they nor we ever defined against Essentiall right We deny not to the Pope a Superiority of Order above the Archbishop of Canterbury but we deny him a Superiority of power in the Exteriour Court that is we deny him the supreme Iudiciary Power so did they King Henry the eighth abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions but the Emperours did not so If they did not so yet if they pleaded for it or justified it it is as much as I said And if they did it by parcells as I have shewed they did though they did it not in grosse it is the same thing in effect Our Ancestours threatned the Pope to make a wall of Separation between him and them not by making a new Law for it was the Common Law of England but by declaring the Law by executing the Law And though they had threatned him to make one generall Law against all his Vsurpations in grosse yet formerly having made single Lawes against the same in particular it was but the same in effect This sucking Contradiction hath been answered sufficiently in the last Section He saith our Controversy is not about the extent of Papall Power but about the right it self The just Contrary is true Our Controversy is onely about the extent of Papall Power or about those particular Branches of Papall power which we have cast out He loves to hover in Generalls but we shall bring him willingly or against his will to descend to particulars He taketh notice here of my complaining that they answer not particulars and I assure the Reader that if their cause would have born it they would have answered them Observe but how tame he is upon this Provocation that useth to be so fierce without any Provocation All the Answer it doth extort from him is Was ever man so ignorant of the common Lawes of Disputing Needs any more answer to be given to particulars which one yields to then to say he grants them If he be over much acquainted with the Lawes of disputing Reddat mihi Minam Diogenes Let him who tanght me Logick give me my Money again But it is well we have his Concedo omnia c We grant all his particular Instances of these Contests between Kings and Popes Yet not so very well neither for what he granteth with one hand he taketh away with the other Not entring into that dispute how farre they were done Iustly how farre unjustly which is little to our purpose since the Authority it self is acknowledged on both Sides It is little to their purpose indeed but it is much to ours Is the Papall Power acknowledged where the Popes Soveraign Power his Legisllative power his Iudiciary Power his dispensative power are all opposed Much good may his dry Papacy as he pleaseth to call it sometimes do him In every one of these Instances besides meer matter of Fact there is an Inference to matter of right The Common Lawes of Disputing require that he should have answered that as well as granted the other If his Dispatches be such as this he may dispatch more answers in a day then St. Austin could have made Oppositions in a yeare When I said what is the Ground of his Exception Nothing but a Contradiction he urgeth that I make account a Contradiction is a matter of nothing No but I meant that his vain Objecting of Imaginary Contradictions is a matter of nothing Twenty of them will not amount to one Fleabiting and I shewed him that this ridiculous Contradiction which he bringeth here is such an one The pretended Contradiction is this that their Doctrin concerning the Pope is injurious to Princes and prejudices their Crownes and yet that they hold and doe the same in effect against the Pope that Protestants doe A doughty Contradiction both parts are as true as can be referendo singula singulis referring what I said to the right Subject as I applied it The Doctrin of the Pope and Court of Rome is injurious to Princes of whom I speake expresly and no others and yet soveraign Princes and their Councells have held and done the same things against the Pope in effect that Protestants doe Iust such another Contradiction as this The Guelphes are for the Pope against the Emperour yet the Gibellines are for the Emperour against the Pope and both Factions Roman Catholicks Thus he changeth Subjects and Predicates and times and respects and all Rules to make a Contradiction But his defence is more ridiculous then his pretended Contradiction That the substance of the Popes Authority is the point which belongs to me to impugn So the Contradiction lieth not in what I did say but what I should have said or rather what he would have had me to have said