force 1. the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schisme supposing these Successors of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ 3. the matter of fact again that S. Peters Successors were thus constituted Vniversal Pastors by Christ This again of two branches 1. that S. Peter was so constituted 2. that the power instated on S. Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome I shall endevour to expedite this matter by granting and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two first branches and leave the issue of the debate to their manifesting the truth or our manifesting the falshood of the last mentioned but indeed the principal fundamental part of the contention as it consists of two branches one as it respects S. Peter the other as it respects his Successor in the See of Rome wherein if the Romanists pretensions shall appear to have truth in them we must be acknowledged by breaking off from our submission to that See to be formally Schismaticks according to the grounds allready laid and acknowledged by us But on the other side if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false or unsufficiently proved and manifested there is no other branch of the argument be it never so true which can give the conclusion any authority with any pondering rational man it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulnesse of the whole chain and consequent to the falsenesse or inevidence of any one proposition that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing § 4. The Supremacy of S. Peter examined And first for the pretension as far as it respects S. Peter and must be managed by evidences and so concluded either on one side or the other I shall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative § 5 Evidences against it First from his being Apostle of the Circumcision peculiarly And first it is evident by Scripture that this Apostle was the Apostle of the circumcision or Jewes exclusively to the uncircumcision or Gentiles which were generally anothers Province By Apostle here I understand a Commissioner of Christs endued with authority by him and this Commission given to him as to all the other Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly not restrained by Christs words to any particular Province but extending equally to the whole world what therefore is done in this kind is by Subsequent act of the Apostles themselves who are testified to have done that which it had been very unskilful and improvident and consequently unreasonable not to have done viz. distributed their Vniversal great Province inro several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.25 distributions or Lots or lesser Provinces one or more to goe one way the other another which is there called by S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Christ to the world § 6. Now if the circumcision or Jewish Christians were peculiarly S. Peters Province the lot or division assigned unto him agreeable unto which it is that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jewes in Judaea and Samaria and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jewes of the dispersion and none else then it is not imaginable how he should be the Vniversal or Supreme Pastor or Bishop of the whole world For the Christians of that age of the world being either Jewes or Gentiles the Jewes again either those that remained in their countrey or those that were dispersed in other regions there was but one portion of one of these which can reasonably be placed under S. Peters Jurisdiction The Jewes that were in Judaea were all immediately subject to the several Bishops in each city and all they to their Metropolitane James the Bishop of Jerusalem Of this James the brother or neer kinsman of Christ many a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Cor 15.7 ex Sentententiâ Chrysostomi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius Epist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Nicephorus l. 2 c. 38. of the Ancients affirm that he was by Christ after his resurrection constituted Bishop there b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others that it was done by Christ and his Apostles c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ex Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Athan. in Synops Epiph. Haer. 78. Nyssen de Resur Or. 2. Hieron in Gal. 1. in Catal. Euseb in Chron. p. 43. others the more ancient that the Apostles constituted him in that See Peter James and John the three most honoured by Christ conferring this honour upon him whereupon in this his See he is named before Peter and John Gal. 2.9 and hath the Principal place in the Councel at Jerusalem where S. Peter is present and accordingly gives the Sentence Act. 15.19 upon which the Rescript is grounded v. 22. From all which as it appeareth that the Jurisdiction in that Metropolis which had extended very far among the Jewes not only to all Judaea but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions saith Agrippa in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo as hath formerly been mentioned belonged to James the Just and not to S. Peter So it is as evident that it was not by S. Peter alone intrusted to him which might conclude some peculiar transcendent power of S. Peter there but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter which quite takes off all pretension of his to the singular Supremacy there § 7. The Gentiles were not S. Peters Province So again for the uncircumcision or Gentile Christians they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Paul's by S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 who is therefore styled the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11.13 and that without any commission received or consequently dependence from S. Peter as he declares and contests it Gal. 1.12.17 having his assignation immediately from Christ v. 16. Accordingly whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same city the one constantly applied himself to the Jewes received disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles § 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Jewes and S. Paul the Gentiles and certainly S. Paul no way Subordinate or dependent on him as appears by his behaviour toward him avowed Gal. 2.11 and acordingly in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians we read of the Church of Antioch that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by S. Peter and S. Paul not by one or
Eginartus Chancellor to Charles the Great and who wrote his life say it was done by Charles the Great And so doth Rhegino who lived in the next age And accordingly in Duarenus de Benef lib. 1. cap. 9. among the Minorum Gentium Patriarchatus that of Grado is reckoned for one and joyned with Aquileia Canterbury and Bourges § 14. Frequent in the East And that it was a frequent usage in the East may appear by the 12 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon where we finde mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cities honoured by letters patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignity of Metropoles and where the Councel represses the ambition of Bishops which sought those privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Rescripts from the Emperours and censures it in them that so sought it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons repressing the ambition of the Bishops but not cassating the Rescripts nor withdrawing the honour from the Metropolis so erected Of this Canon Balsamon saith that when it was made many Emperours had erected many Metropolitanes and naming three adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that other Bishopricks were thus honoured and that the Emperours did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power that was given them Where it is farther to be observed 1. that this Councel was within 20 years after that grant of Valentinian and consequently if Balsamon say right that at that time many Emperours had erected many there must needs be others before Valentinian 2. That the 17 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a city be built or restored by the Kings power let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Councel in Trullo Can 38. And then 3. that these two last Canons are reconciled with that 12 th of Chalcedon by the law of Alexius Comnenus and assented to by the Synod under him See Balsam in Can 38. Concil in Trullo who concludes that the King might doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon his own incitation or motion but it should not be lawful for any by base sollicitation to seek or obtain it adding that in that case upon any such Rescript of the Emperour for such erection it might be lawful for the Patriarch to suspend the confirmation of the Charter untill he represented to the Emperour what the Canons were in that case and understood if the Emperour did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his own motion which appearing the Patriarch was to admit thereof And accordingly the same Balsamon on Concil Carthag Can 16. doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis and anew to constitute Bishops and Metropolitanes § 15. So also to translate As for the transplanting it also from one city to another besides that the power of doing that is consequent to the former the examples of this practise are antient Examples in England Concil Angl p. 26. and frequent in this kingdome The passage set down out of the Annals of Gisburne may be sufficient From Caeruske the Metropolitan seat was translated to S. Davids by King Arthur where it continued till Henry I. and then was reduced to Canterbury § 16. In like manner 't is evident that the Kings of England have divided Bishopricks and erected new ones About the year 630. Kinigilsa King of the West-Saxons and Oswald of the Northumbers erected an Episcopal See at Dorchester and placed Birinus in it so saith Guil Malmesb de Gest Pontif Angl l. 2. About the year 660 Kenewalch King of the West-Saxons divided this Bishoprick and left part to Dorchester and assigned the western part to be the Diocese of the new Bishop which he constituted at Winchester so saith Hen Huntingd Hist l. 3. Then Winchester was subdivided in the time of King Ina who also erected a new Bishoprick at Sherburne and gave it to Aldelme so Henr Huntingd l. 4. and Guil Malm de Reg Angl l. 1. c. 2. And after the Norman conquest Henry I. divided Cambridgeshire from the See of Lincolne and erected the Bishoprick of Elie so saith Guiliel Malm de Gest Pontif Angl l. 4. and Florentius Wigorn Anno 1109. who lived at that time So also saith Eadmer with some variation Regi Archiepiscopo caeterÃsque Principibus regni visum fuit de ipsâ Parochiâ Lincolniae sumendum quo fieret alter Episcopatus cujus cathedra Principatus poneretur in Abbatiâ de Eli It seemed good to the King the Archbishop and the rest of the Princes of the kingdome to take as much out of the Diocese of Lincolne as would make another Bishoprick the chair whereof should be set up in the Abbacie of Elie. Adding indeed that Anselme a zealous promoter of the Papal authority as the author Eadmer was a disciple and admirer of Anselme wrote to Pope Paschalis desiring his consent to it as a thing fit to be done and yet to which he assures him he would not give his consent but salvâ authoritate Papae reserving the rights of the Pope Which though it doth suppose the Popes pretensions to that authority at that time and Anselm's yeilding it to him yet it proves also this right of our Kings to have been even then adhered to preserved and exercised by them as the former authors had set it down § 17. So to exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction Of this nature also is the authority of Kings in exempting any Ecclesiastical person from the Bishops Jurisdiction and granting Episcopal Jurisdiction to such person which is largely asserted and exemplified in Cawdries case 5. Report 14. One instance of this will serve for all that of William the Conqueror who exempted Battel Abbey in Sussex from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chichester and gave the Abbat Episcopal Jurisdiction in his Territorie and the words of the Charter are produced by M r Selden on Eadmer Hoc regali authoritate Episcoporum ac Baronum meorum attestatione constituo I appoint this by my royal authority by the attestation of my Bishops and Barons § 18. Kings Founders of Bishopricks and Patrons Adde even unto this that even the Westerne Princes in those parts where the Bishops of Rome have much hightned their power ever since the Kings were Christians the German Emperours the Kings of France and England alwayes claimed to be founders of all Bishopricks in their Dominions Patrons of them to bestow them by investiture that the Kings of France and England often claimed and were acknowledged to have right that no Legate from Rome might come into the Land and use jurisdiction without their leave All which put together are a foundation for this power of the Princes to erect or translate a Patriarchate It being withall acknowledged that
our Kings have the same authority in their Territories that the Roman Emperour had in the Empire § 19. The Reason of all supreme power of Kings And the reason of all this is clear not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of causes even those of the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is as it were the common directer and ruler of the Church both in title and reality Demetrii Chomateni Resp ad Const Cab Jur. Graec Rom l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted overseer or Bishop by God saith Constantine the Great in an assembly of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am King and Priest saith Leo Isaurus to Gregory the second Nec tamen eo nomine à Pontifice reprehenditur and was not for this reprehended by the Pope see J. C. de lib. Eccl ap Goldast Monarch t. 1. p. 686. So Socrates the historian of the Emperours in general after their receiving the faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the affairs of the Church depended on them in Prooem l. 5. And by Optatus l. 2. it is noted and censured as a Schismatical piece of language in the Donatistâ— Quid enim Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ And all this according to the principles of civil policy acknowledged by Aristotle Pol. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King hath power of those things that belong to the Gods and by Diotogenes in Sâ—obaeus that a perfect King ought to be both a good Captain and a Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and a Priest also And accordingly among the ancient Roman regal Lawes this is one Sacrorum omniuÌ„ potestas sub Regibus esto Let the power of all sacred things be under the Kings and so in the practice Caius Caesar in Suetonius c. 13. was both Augur and Summus Pontifex Galba tres Pontificatus gerebat Ibid Gal. c. 8. Claudius is by Josephus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest High-priest and Tacitus makes it his observation Deûm nunc munere summum Pontificem summum hominum esse Annal l. 3. The same appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the temple Hezekiah 2 Chron 29. 2 Kin 18. and Josiah 2 Kin 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so S. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar see G de Heimberg de usurp Pap so in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of Justinians i. e. the Emperours constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men and sacred offices And the Canons of Councels have mostly been set out and received their authority by the Emperours and accordingly in the Theodosian Code we shall find many of those which are now called Papal decrees Church as well as Civil as might be proved at large if here it were needful and cannot be reasonably so confined as not to belong to a matter of this nature but peculiarly from that which hath been already noted and expressely ordered Can. 17. of the Councel of Chalcedon even now cited of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces c and Ecclesiastical division of Provinces following the Civil following the civil For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes where he please and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles and divisions of Provinces as Strabo saith Geogr. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Provinces are variously distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Romanes divide them not by tribes or families but after another manner in relation to the cities where they set up their courts of Assizes and again it being most reasonable that as any new accident raises one city to a greater populousnesse or depresses another so for the convenience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature the other cease to be so and no man so fit to passe the judgement when this should be as the King and 3. the very same reasons of convenience moving in the Church as in the State the Bishops and over them Metropolitanes and Primates having their judicatures and audiences which in all reason must be so disposed of as may be most for the convenience of administration that they and all under them may do their duties with most facility and to greatest advantage and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary constitution either of Christ or his Apostles against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or interpretatively as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peters universal Pastorship whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes the Conclusion is rational as well as evident just that it should be so as well as cleare that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure that the King may erect a Primacy when he please and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustines planting the faith did at Canterbury the seate of his Kingdome Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25. conquently remove it from any other place at his pleasure Had it not been for this there is no reason assignable why this nation being in Constantines time under three Metropolitans the Arch-bishop of York and the Primacy belonging to that city as being then the Emperours seat where Septimius Severus and Constantius Chlorus died and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britannie the Arch-bishop of London and the Arch-bishop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire either 1. there should be as there was an addition of two Provinces more Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury as also from Caerusk to S. David's as hath been said and the Primacie from Yorke to Canterbury § 20. This Power of Kings if taken away by forein laws c. resumable Now what is thus vested in the Regal power cannot be taken away by forein laws or by prescription be so alienated but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to resume it sect 21. That laws made at Rome doe not take away the liberty of another national Church to make contrary laws thereunto and that by such obviation no Schisme is incurred we finde delivered in the Councel of Carthage Can 71. according to Balsamon's division And though the Canon be not set down by Binius yet both he and Baronius acknowledge that what was contain'd in that particular Canon was the main occasion of the Synod And the Antiquity thereof is considerable those Canons being made say Baronius and Binius Anno 401. § 22. So likewise that a Law though made by a General Councel and with the consent of all Christian Princes yet
out of this Island The Praemunire and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will and choice but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the fear being the occasion of their debates but the reasons or arguments offered in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision § 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsly determined then the voluntarinesse or freenesse of the determination will not be able to justifie it and on the other side if the determination were just then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling to doe it And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII the Bishop of Rome were supreme head or Governour of this Church of England or had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other viz to the Archbishop of Canterbury if he pleased § 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid and confirmed to have truth in them For the pretensions for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three either in his right as S. Peter's successour to the Vniversal Pastorship that including his power over England as a member of the whole or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope and his successours that sent him or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings the two former of these have been largely disproved already Chap. 4 5 and 6. in discourses purposely and distinctly applied to those pretensions The concession of Kings And for the third that will appear to have received its determination also I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes to which purpose I shall mention but one passage that of †in Goldast de Mon G. de Heimburg some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust Vsurp Pap where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope he saith that this is a submission in him and a patience above what any other suffers and proves it by this argument Nam eximius Rex Angliae Franciae Dux Marchio non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis quà m quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur The King of England and France any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decretals fabulously invented so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates and will be farther confirmed in the Negative if answer be first given to this Dilemma § 8. A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings was either so originally vested in our Kings that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased pleased and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings If it were not then was that grant an invalid null grant for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give presumptions invasions robberies in the giver which devolve no right to the receiver and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellour or any other of his officers from his place and commit it to another this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in the Book by them intituled The Institution of a Christian man Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King then is the King's power diminished and he consequently by this his act of which we treat become lesse a King then formerly he was And then we know that such acts which make him so are invalid acts it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power § 9. Two sorts of gifts To which purpose it must be observed 1. that some things are so ours that we may freely use them but cannot freely part with them as all those things wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons but intailed on our posterity and such the regal power is supposed to be 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties are so freely ours to give that when they are given they are departed out of our selves and cannot justly be by us resumed again in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good data eo ipso qu◠dantur fiunt accipientis what is given by the very act of being given becomes the goods of the receiver so other things are given to others so as we doe not part with them our selves they are as truly and properly ours after as before the Concession § 10. Some revocable Thus the Sun communicates his beams and with them his warmth and influences and yet retains all which it thus communicates and accordingly withdraweth them again And God the spring of all life and grace doth so communicate each of these that he may and doth freely withdraw them again and when he taketh away our breath we die And thus certainly the King being the fountain of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall
if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that nation be repealed is the judgment of Roger Widrington or Father Preston in his last rejoinder to Fitzherbert c. 11. § 44. and c. 8. he confirms it by the doctrine of Zuarez l. 2. de leg c. 19. and the reason of Zuarez is because such a law made at a general meeting of Princes is intrinsecally a civil law and hath not force by virtue of the law to binde the subjects of any particular kingdome or Common-wealth any otherwise then as it is enacted or received by the Governors and subjects of that kingdome § 23. And this is affirmed and extended by Balsamon to all Canons in general as the judgment of learned men in his notes on that 16 th Canon of the Councel of Carthage before cited § 24. So if alienated by prescription And for the matter of Prescription the decision of †Clav Reg l. 9. c. 12. Sayr is worth observing that in such cases as these Cum Praescriptio sit tantùm de jure Civili Canonico When the Prescription is neither of the law of Nature nor the Divine law nor the law of Nations but only of the Civil and Canon law there non plus se extendit quà m unusquisque supremus Princeps in suo Regno eam suis legibus extensam esse velit it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his laws is supposed to will that it shall be extended which saith he cannot be supposed in matters of this nature of exempting subjects from making their appeal to their King for saith he non est de mente alicujus Principis ut quispiam subditorum possit praescribere quòd ad Principem ab eo non appelletur aut quòd eum coercere non potest quando ratio justitia postulat It is not imaginable to be the minde of any Prince that any of his subjects should be able to prescribe that he is not to appeal to his Prince but to some other or that his Prince may not punish him when reason and justice requires It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that I here pretend but I shall not thus expatiate CHAP. VII Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation § 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulnesse of the Reformation in these kingdomes will easily be answered And therefore supposing the third and last objection to lie against our Reformation that it was founded in the casting off that obedience to the Bishop of Rome which was formerly paid him by our Bishops and people under them I shall now briefly descend to that first laying down the matter of fact as it lies visible in our records and then vindicating it from all blame of schisme which according to the premises can any way be thought to adhere to it § 2. The history of what was done against the Bishop of Rome in the Reformation And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledged that in the reigne of King Henry VIII the Papal and with it all forein power in Ecclesiastical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergie and by statutes or acts of Parliament cast out of this kingdome The first step or degree hereof was the Clergie's synodical recognizing the King singularem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectorem unicum supremum Dominum the singular Protector the only and supreme Head of the Church of England Upon this were built the statutes of 24 Hen VIII prohibiting all Appeals to Rome and for the determining all Ecclesiasticall suits and controversies within the kingdome The statute of 25 Hen VIII for the manner of electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops and another in the same year prohibiting the payment of all impositions to the court of Rome and for the obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome and that of 26 Hen VIII declaring the King to be the supreme head which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was to avoid mistakes changed into supreme Governour of the Church of England and to have all honours and praeeminencies which were annexed to that title § 3. This was in the next place attended with the submission of the Clergie to the King agreed on first in Convocation and afterward in 25 Hen VIII enacted by Parliament to this purpose that as it was by the Clergie acknowledged that the Convocation of the Clergie then was alwaies had been and ought to be assembled by the Kings writ and as they submitting themselves to the King's Majestie had promised in verbo sacerdotis that they would never from thenceforth presume to attempt allege claim or put in ure enact promulge or exercise any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other unlesse the King 's most royal assent may to them be had to make promulge execute the same so it was now enacted that none of the Clergie should enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical without assent and authority received from the King upon pain of imprisonment and fine at the Kings pleasure § 4. The third and last step of this began with the debate of the Vniversities and most eminent Monasteries in the kingdome An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether any authority did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome in the Kingdome of England more then to any other forein Bishop and upon agitation it was generally defined in the negative and so returned testified under their hands and seals The like was soon after concluded and resolved by the Convocation of the Bishops and all the Clergie and subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oathes And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis set out by the Prelates the chief composers of which were John Stokesly Bishop of London Cutbert Tunstall Bishop of Durham Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester and D r Thirlby afterward Bishop where from the practise of the Saxon and first Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Negative out of story And what was thus concluded by the Clergie was soon turned into an Act of Parliament also in 28 Hen VIII called An Act extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome and prescribing an oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical and lay of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority § 5. By these three degrees it is acknowledged that the Bishops and Clergie first then the King confirming the Acts of the Convocation and after making Acts of Parliament to the same purposes renounced the authority of the Roman See and cast it
and communicate it to another And therefore may as freely bestow the power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England or which is all one of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome And then as this being by this means evidenced to be no more then an act of regal power which the King might lawfully exercise takes off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power or declared not to have had it de jure but only to have assumed it formerly which freedome from that obedience immediately clears the whole businesse of schisme The reasonablenesse of revoking it as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful superiour so will there not want many weighty reasons deducible from the antient Canons as well as the maximes of civil government why the King who may freely place the Primacy where he please should choose to place it in a Bishop and subject of his own nation rather then in a forein Bishop farre removed and him not only independent from that King but himself enjoying a Principality or territorie which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly and to improve the concessions which are either acknowledged or pretended to be made him to that purpose § 11. And here it is not amisse to observe in the reign of Queen Mary Title power of Supreme head of the Church retained by Queen Mary who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgie and made all speed to repeal what had been done in King Edward's time in that matter yet 1. that she left not the title of Supreme head till the third Parliament of her reigne and 2. that in the second Parliament authority is granted her to make and prescribe to all such Cathedral and Collegiate Churches as were erected by Henry the VIII such statutes and orders as should seem good to her and that statute never repealed but expired 3. that in her third Parliament it was with much difficulty obtained that the supremacie of the Pope should be acknowledged the matter being urged by her as that which concerned the establishing the Matrimonie of her Mother and her legitimation which depended upon the absolute power of the Pope 4. that in the 4 th year of her reigne when the Pope sent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England and to be Bishop of Sarisbury she would not permit him to come into the Land neither could he have that Bishoprick which as it was some check to the Pope's absolute supremacy and an assertion and vindication of the Regal power so being added to the former it will be lesse strange that this Supreme power of the Popes should be by the Bishops in the reigne of Henry VIII disclaimed and ejected § 12. Upon this bottome the foundation of Reformation being laid in England the superstructure was accordingly erected by the King and Bishops and Clergie in Convocation but this not all at once but by distinct steps and degrees Somewhat in the reigne of this Henry the VIII as in the number of the Sacraments the use of the Lords Prayer c. in the English tongue and the translation of the Bible all resolved on in Synod the King which duly assembled it presiding in it by his Vicar General § 13. This was much farther advanced in the time of his son Edward the VI. who being a childe The advance of the Reformation in K ng Edward's daies and the Laws and Constitution of this Realm committing the exercise of the Supreme power in that case into the hands of a Protector what was thus regularly done by that Protector cannot be doubted to be of the same force and validity as if the King had been of age and done it himself Or if it should it would be an unanswerable objection against all hereditary successive Monarchy a maim in that form of Government which could no way be repaired there being no amulet in the Crown which secures the life of each King till his successor be of age nor promise from heaven that the children of such Princes shall by succeeding to the Crown advance by miracle to the years and abilities of their Parents So irrational is the scoffe and exception of some that what was done in King Edward's daies being the Acts of a childe is as such to be vilified and despised § 14. In the Reign of this Prince many Changes were made in the Church and Recessions from the Doctrines and practises of Rome Beside that of Images the lawfulnesse of the marriage of the Clergie was asserted a body of an English Liturgie formed and setled for publick use the Eucharist appointed to be administred to the people in both kindes c. and though Bishop Gardner of Winchester and Bishop Bonner of London made opposition against these changes and for some misbehaviours herein were imprison'd and two more moderate learned men Bishop Tunstal of Durham and Bishop Day of Chichester upon another score yet Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Bishops making up the farre greater number joyned with the Supreme power in the Reformation And as it is no great marvell that there should be some so few dissenters so the punishment inflicted on them will not be deemed excessive by any that shall compare it with the farre severer executions the fire and fagot which were soon after in Queen Mary's daies inflicted on Archbishop Cranmer Bishop Ridley and Bishop Latimer as the reward of their disputing in the Synod against Transubstantiation and the like cruelties on multitudes more and the Exiles and deprivations which befell so many others in her Reigne However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reigne of King Edward wrought as hath been said by the Supreme power with the consent of the major part of Bishops § 15. In Queen Elizabeth's That which afterward followed in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's reigne may be thought more distant and lesse reconcileable to our pretensions not that of her sex her being a woman for so was Qu. Mary before which acted so vigorously for the contrary way and the constitution of our Monarchy invests equally either sex in the plenitude of Regal power in sacred as well as civil affairs and it was but to raise envie against the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's sex as before King Edward's non-age hath by some been thought fit to be mention'd and cannot by any sober judgment be admitted to have any force in it but because as it is from our histories more pertinently objected most of the Bishops were by her divested of their dignities and new created in their stead To this therefore in the last place I must apply my self to give satisfaction And