might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
land when soever these were infringed or an attempt made to destroy them as the liberties of the Crowne and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope it was the manner to restore them or to declare them by a statute which was not operative to make or create new law but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law This I told him expressely in the vindication and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers Fitz Herbirt and my Lord Cook to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law but declarative to restore ancient law This appeareth undeniably by the statute it self That England is an Empire and that the King as head of the body politicke consisting of the spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall Iustice for all matters Here he seeth expressely that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality which is all that we assert at this day was the an e nt fundamentall law of England And lest hâ—e should accuse this Parliament of partialiâ—y I produced another that was more ancient The Crowne of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to be submitted to the Pope Here the Kings politicall Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamentall Law of the Land Let him not say that this was intended onely in temporall matters for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressely Ecclesiasticall What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more and to accuse me of impudence Secondly he saith that I bring diverse allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted or where the Pope is expressely denied the power to do such and such things Do we professe the Pope can pretend no more then his right Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted He stileth the Authorities by me produced meer Allegations yet they are as authentick Records as England doth afford But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in generall expressions of the Popes pretences and such or such things as if the controversy had been onely about an handfull of goats wool I will make bold to represent some of the Popes pretences and their declarations against them And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestours in those particulars he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question They declared that it was the custom or common law of the land ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa that no Pope might be appealed unto without the Kings licence They made a law that if any one were found bringing in the Popes letters or mandates into the kingdome let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and kingdome They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiasticall causes concerning the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church over all Ecclesiastical persons in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars nor make spiritual corporations nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary nor appropriate Churches nor to dispose Benefices by lapse nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy but the King did all these things as I shewed at large in the vindication They permitted not the Popes canon law to have any place in England further then they pleased to receive it They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishopricks and investitures of Bishops They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the Kings license They admitted no Legates from the Pope but meerly upon courtesy and if any was admitted he was to take his oath to doe nothing derogatory to the King or his Crowne If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication in England without the Kings consent or bring over the Popes bull he forfeited all his goods So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject nor dispose of an English Benefice nor send a Legate a latere orso much as an authoritative bul into England nor to reâ—eive an appeal out of England without the kings license But saith he To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not This was not meerly to limit an authority but to deny it VVhat lawfull Jurisdiction could remain to him in England who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence nor to send any Citation or sentence thither nor execute any authority over an English Subject either at Rome by himself or in England by his deputies without licence That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent Give us the same limitation which our Ancestours alwayes claimed that no forraign authority shall be exercised in England withour leave and then give the Pope as much authority as you please volenti non fit injuria consent takes away error He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him He demandeth first were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths raign Yes but it is no strange matter to explaine or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses as we see in magna Charta the statute of proviso's and many other Statutes Secondly he asketh whether we began our Religion there that is at that time when these ancient lawes were made no I have told him formerly that these statutes were onely declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdome VVe began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time before they had a Church at Rome But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion Lastly he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France Spaine Germany and Italy it self and yet they are Catholicks and hold communication with the Pope Yes there are some such laws in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English as I have shewed in the vindication And therefore the Popes friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience loyall Countries VVhat â—use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more then we in England concerns not me nor this present discourse And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section he cries out How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and
against him the Pope who was his Lord. But now supposing all R. C. his suggestions had been true That Cranmer and Crumwell had been Protestants at that time and had been in as much grace and had had the like opportunity of addresse to the King as they had afterwards that Cranmer had perswaded the King as a Divine and Crumwell as a Polititian to separate from the Court of Rome And that Barnes had preached against the Popes Supremacy Yet this is farre from the authoritative separation of the whole Church and Kingdome from the Court of Rome Morall perswasions may incline but cannot necessitate the will Therefore not confiding to these broken Reeds at length he admits that Roman Catholicks were the Authors of the saparation Be it so that Roman Catholicks were the authors of the division that is worse for Protestants because then Protestants continue a wicked Schism wicked begun against conscience against known truth and consequently a sin against the holy Ghost And to make his assertion good he produceth the authority of Optatus It appeareth evidently that you are the heirs of Schismaticks He who reads this would believe that Optatus spake positively of Protestants when he speaks only of Donatists cum haec itâ— gesta esse manifestissime constet vos haeredes esse traditorum Schismaticorum evidenter appareat Seeing it is most evident that these things did fall out thus that is that Majorinus whose Chair Parmenianus did now possesse did divide himself from the communion of Caecilianus and set up a Chair against a Chair in the same Church or a new Chair quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat and seeing Majorianus was a traditor and a Schismatick it appears evidently that Parmenian was the heire of a Schismatick Now what doth this concern us The Donatists set up a new Chair against an old Chair in the same Church we have done no such thing God make us able to keep up tha old Secondly the Donatists separated themselves from all other Churches we separate our selves from no Churches neither from the Chair of Caecilian nor of Peter nor of Cyprian But if we would know not only who are the heirs of the Donatists but who are their heirs in their Schism we may finde them easily It is the Roman Catholicks themselves first in their uncharitablenesse in breaking the bond of brotherly unity The Catholicks owned the Donatists for their brethren but the Donatists refused to own the Catholicks for their brethren quamvie illi non negent omnibus not um sit c. Although they deny it not and it is known to all men that they hate us and accurse us and will not be called our brethren yet c. without doubt they are our brethren And a little after And because they will not have the Episcopall College common with us let them not be our fellow Collegians if they will not yet as I said before they are our brethren This is just the case between them and us we offer them the right hand of brotherhood as the Catholicks did to the Donatists but they refuse it as the Donatists did to the Catholicks Secondly the Donatists separated the whole Catholick Church from their communion and substituted themselves being but a small part of the Christian World in the place of the Catholick Church Just as the Romanists doe at this day Optatus speaks home unto them both the old and new Donatists Se pro voluntate vestra inangustum coarctatis Ecclesiam c. If ye for your pleasure doe thrust the Church into a streit if ye substract all Nations where is that which the Son of God hath merited where is that which the Father hath given him I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession Why doe you infringe this promise Or imprison this universall Kingdome c. Suffer the Son to possesse his Fathers gift Suffer the Father to fulfill his promise Why doe you set bounds and limits And still ye endeavour to perswade men that the Church is only with you Let the Reader judge who are the right heirs of the Donatists The rest of his discourse is a groundlesse asking of the question First those Roman Catholicks did make no separation from the Roman Church but from the Roman Court. Secondly they separated from the Roman Court only in its innovations without criminous Schism Thirdly we cannot we dare not be so uncharitable as to judge that the whole Kingdome and all the Pastors of the Church did sinne against their conscience but we believe firmly that it was the clear light and evidence of truth that made them so unanimous in their separation Fourthly though they had sinned against the known truth not being done of malice it was not the sinne against the holy Ghost St. Peter did not sinne against the holy Ghost when he denied Christ. Fiftly though they had sinned against conscience in separating yet the fault being not in the thing done but in the conscience of the doer we being better informed may with a good conscience hold what they with a bad conscience did take away Lastly though they had sinned not only in separating against conscience but also in the very act of separation Yet we who found the separation made to our hands who never did any act either to oblige us to Rome or to disoblige us from Rome holding what we received from our Ancestors and endeavoring to finde out the truth and ready to receive it whensoever God shall reveal it unto us are not censurable as Schismaticks as I proved out of Saint Austine though R. C. be pleased to take no notice of it Here he makes a short double and will needs have Henry the eight to have been a substantiall Protestant If he was a Protestant doubtlesse he was a substantiall Protestant But why a Protestant Doctor Barnes and many more who were burned by him for Protestants would hardly have believed it But he saith Henry the eight was an Antipapist and that is sufficient to make a Protestant If that be sufficient to make a Protestant it is well otherwise one of his friends tels us 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 Ancestors Lately he tould us that the essence and life and soul and definition of a Protestant was to hold justification by Faith alone then Henry the eight was no Protestant for he did not hold justification by Faith alone Now he makes the essence of a Protestant to be impugning the Popes Supremacy I had not thought essences or definitions had been so mutable but for my part I am glad of the change If all Antipapists be Protestants then all the Grecian Armenian Abyssen Russian Christians are Protestants then we shall not want Protestants to bear us company in
the Church of Rome it self so long as there are any followers of the Councells of Constance and Basill But some Protestants have confessed That he was a Member of the Catholick Church Why not There are many Members of the Catholick Church besides Protestants Others call him a true Defender of the true Faith a Denfender of the Gospell an Embracer of the pure Gospell of Christ rejecting devises of men contrary thereunto All this may be true and yet they neither say nor intend this absolutely but comparatively not universally but respictvely to some particular controverted points and principally this of the Supremacy I charged some for making the cruelty of the Protestants and the rigour of their Laws the motives of their falling away from the English Church And shewed that more Protestants suffered not only death but extreme torments in death for Religion in the short reign of Queen Mary then Roman Catholicks in all the much longer reigns of all the Protestant Princes since the Reformation And that the Kingdome of France and the Common-wealth of Venice had made the like Lawes to ours Whatsoever I say in our defense he takes no notice of but declaimes against the injustice of our Laws and Judges not without a specious shew of reason Wherefore because it intrencheth upon the honour of our Church and Nation I will take the libertie to search this sore to the bottome I confesse that no man or Society of men can be justly punished notwithstanding the brutish opinions of some persons because they are noxious unless they be noxious in the eye of the Law No not by a legislative authority Where a man cannot give sentence innocently he cannot vote innocently The reason is plain Where there is no Law there is no transgression and where there is no transgression there is no guilt nor just punishment Secondly I confesse that a Law made like a Casting-net to throw over mens lives is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most lawless Law In the twelve Tables which Livy calls the fountains of publick and private right which alone said Tully do excell all the Libraries of all the Philosophers in the World it is thus enacted according to the excellent concise simplicity of their stile Privilegia ne inroganto Let no private Laws be made to any mans hurt or prejudice Likewise it was the Law of Solon That no Law should be made of particular men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless it were imposed upon all the Athenians indifferently said Demosthenes For the same reason when the Thebans had a minde to banish Heraclitus they durst not name him but pointed him out in generall If there was any man in the Citie that never laught and hated all Mankinde let him depart before Sun-set Thinking vainly to hide the nakedness of their Law with a few figg-leaves of generall expressions So universally was this received throughout the World that Laws should not be made for the ruine of particular Subjects Thirdly We must Take notice that many things are lawfull in publick Justice that is in Warre or Legislation or the like which are not lawfull in particular Justice between Subject and Subject As it is lawfull to pull down any Citizens house to save the whole Citie from fire It is lawfull to make use of any mans land to make a bank to save the whole Country from inundation in which cases nevertheless the publick is obliged to repaire the Subjects damage Suppose the greater part of a Citie should force the honester part to submit to their pleasure and contribute to their rebellious courses or force them to it the party forced is innocent Yet in the recoverie of the Towne the honestest Citizens are as subject to be slain their houses to be burned their goods to be plundered as the most disloyall And justly For it being lawfull to reduce the Citie to obedience by warre this justifies all necessarie means of reduction And the honest party who suffer without fault cannot blame the Magistrates for their sufferings nor the Souldiers who doe their commands but their fellow Citizens But when this necessity is over and the Citie is reduced and distinction can be made particular Justice must take place again and then none ought to suffer but Delinquents according to the degree of their Delinquency Fourthly To proceed one step neerer to the case in question The same necessity doth justifie those Lawes which are enacted for the common safety and tranquillity of the whole body politick under whatsoever penalties they aâ—e pleased to impose as banishment confiscation of goods imprisonment or death it self so they be proportioned to the exigence of the dangers greater or lesser though these Lawes prove burthensome to particular Citizens or restrain Subjects from the exercise of those things which oâ—herwise were benefiâ—iall lawfull and laudable to them in particular Suppose a Generall should make an Edict That no Souldier uâ—der pain of death should leave the Câ—mp Yet one goes to visit his Father being sick and suffâ—rs for it This is not for doing his filial duty but for violating of his Generalls Edict In Ireland it was forbidden by Statute under pain of most severe punishment to use the words Crumabo and Butlerabo because they were badgets of Faction and incentives to Sedition The Philistims did not suffer a Smith in Israel least the Hebrews should make themselves Swords and Spears The King of Spain weighing the danger that might arise from the numerous multitudes of Moors within his Dominions sent them all packing away by an Edict The Athenians thought it no injustice to banish their chiefest and most loyall Citizens if they fâ—ared a tyranny or necessity of State did require it All Nations have their Imbargues and prohibited goods and forbid all Commerce and Conversation with those that are in open hostility against them If a ship arrive from any places infected with some contagious disease they keep the pasâ—â—ngers from mixing with their Subjects untill they have given sufficient proof that they are â—ound If they find cause to banish a citizen either for a prefixed terme or for ever under pain of death or forfeiture of all their goods if there be a necessity in it to secure the Common-wealth they may doe it And if the persons to banished will return on their own heads upon pretence that they love their Country so well that they canâ—ot live out of it or if any of them being a Clergy man should pretend that he returns out of conscience to doe the offices of his Function among his Countrymen it is not the Law but they who pull the penalty of the Law upon themselves In summe it is cleer that whensoever a Prince or a Republick out of just necessity and for the preservation of the Common-wealth shâ—ll restrain their subjects from anything that threatens the same with imminent dangers upon whatsoever penalty it be so it be proportionable to the danger it is
just And if the Subject will not obey his blood is upon his own head The only question is whether there was at that time not only a pretended but a reall necessity to make those Laws which they call sanguinary or bloody for the preservation of the Common wealth This is the case between the Romanists and us upon these two hinges this controversy is moved Then to leave the Thesis and come unto the Hypothesis and to shew that at that time there was a reall necessity for the making of those Laws First let it be observed that after the secession of the English Church from the Court of Rome the succeeding Popes have for the most part looked upon England with a very ill eye Witness that terrible and unparalleled excommunication and interdiction of England a deprivation of Henry the eighth formerly mentioned published at Dunkirk because they durst bring it no neerer Witness the Bull of Anathematization and deprivation by Pius the fifth against Queen Elizabeth and all her adherents absolving all her Subjects from their oaths of Allegiance without so much as an admonition preceeding Witness the Popes negotiations with the English Spanish French and Portugheses to have Queen Elizabeth taken away by murther and the frame of the Government altered published at Rome by Hieronimo Catena Secretary to Cardinall Alexandrino in the time and with the priviledge of Sixtus the fifth Witness the Logantine authority given to Sanders and the hollowed Banner sent with him and Allen two Romish Priests to countenance the Earl of Desmond in his Rebellion And the Phaenix plume sent to Terowen to incourage him likewise in his Rebellion and a plenary Indulgence for him and all his adherents and assistants from Clement the eighth Lastly witness the two Briefs sent by the same Pope to exclude King Iames from the inheritance of the Crown of England unless he would take an Oath to promote the Roman catholick Interest This is not all In the second place the Popes to have the greater influence upon England did themselves found or conserve severall Colleges or Seminaries of English Priests at Rome at Rhemes at Doway where the English youth were trained up more for the advantage of the Pope than of their Prince and native Countrie What those Principles were which were then infused into them I have neither means at present nor in truth desire to inquire because I hope that at this day they are disclaimed by all or the most learned and moderate persons of those Societies Only for the justification of my native Countrie give me leave to set downe some of them in the words of the former learned Historiographer Suspicions also were daily raised by the great number of Priests creeping more and more into England who privily felt mens mindes spread abroad That Princes excommunicate were to be deposed and whispered in corners That such Princes as professed not the Roman Religion had forfeited their Title and Regall Authority That those men which had entered into holy Orders were by a certain ecclesiasticall freedome exempted from all Iurisdiction of Princes and not bound by their Laws nor ought to reverence their Majesty And that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme authority and most full power over the whole World yea even in temporall matters And that the Magistrates of England were no lawfull Magistrates and therefore not to be accounted for Magistrates Yea that all things whatsoever done by the Queens authority from the time that the Bull declaratory of Pius quintus was published were by the Laws of God and Man altogether void and to be esteemed nothing And some of them dissembled not that they were returned into England with no other intent then by reconciling in confession to absolve every one in particular from all oathes of allegiance and obedience to the Queen Judg how such Emissaties deserved to be welcomed into a Kingdome More might be added but this it self is enough or too much Lastly View all the Treasons and Rebellions that were in Queen Elizabeth's time and see from what source they did spring Parsons proposed to Papists the deposing of the Queen so far forth that some of them thought to have delivered him into the Magistrates hands And wrote a Book under the name of Doleman to intitle the Infanta of Spain to the Crown of England Of Sanders I have spoken formerly Only let me add this That when he was found dead they found in his pouch Orations and Epistles to confirme the Rebells with promise of assistance from the Bishop of Rome and others Parre confessed That that which finally setled him in his treasonable purpose to kill the Queen was the reading of Allens Book that Princes excommunicated for Heresie were to be deprived of life Ballard was himself a Priest of the Seminarie of Rhemes See his conspiracy I pass by the commotions raised in Scotland by Bruce Creiton and Haies Squire accused Walpoole for putting him upon it to poyson the Queen I speake not of the confession of Iohn Nicholas nor the testimonie of Eliot mentioned in their own Apology because they are not of undoubted faith This is most certain That when Campian was interrogated before his death whether Queen Elizabeth were a lawfull and rightfull Queen he refused to answer And being asked If the Pope should send forces against the Queen whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope he openly professed and testified under his hand that he would stand for the Pope The same Author addeth That his fellows being examined in like manner either refused to answer or gave such ambiguous and prevaricatory answers that some ingenuous Catholicks began to suspect that they fostered some treachery Lay all these together their disloyall answers their seditious tenets so many treacherous attempts so many open Rebellions so many depositions and deprivations and exclusions so many Books brim-full of prodigious treason At such a time when the seditious opinions of that party were in their Zenith when seditious persons crowded over daily in such numbers when the Heir apparent of the Crown of England was a Roman Catholick And let any reasonable man judge whether the Kingdome of England had not just cause of feare whether they were not necessitated to provide nequid detrimenti caperet Respublica that the Commonwealth should sustain no loss whether our Statesmen who did then sit at the sterne were not obliged to their Prince and to their Countrie to provide by all means possible for the security of their Prince and tranquility of their Countrie which could not be done at that time without the exclusion of such Bigots and Bowtifeus from among them nor they be possibly excluded but by such severe Lawes These are the very reasons given in the Edict it self That it did plainly appear to her Majesty and her Councell by many examinations by their own Letters and confessions and by the actuall conspiracies of the like
persons sent into Ireland by the Pope that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesties Dominions was to prepare the Subjects to assist forrein invaders to excite the People to Rebellion and to deprive her Majesty of her Crown and dignity and life it self Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some Though many of them who were bred in those Seminaries were Pensioners of the Pope the King of Spain or the Duke of Guise all which at that time were in open hostility with the Crown of England Is it not lawfull to forbid Subjects to be bred in an enemies Countrie or to turn their Pensioners or if they doe goe out of themselves to exclude them from their native Soyle Yet in other places and it may be in those Colleges also many others preserved their principles of loyalty At the same time Doctor Bishopp one of the Roman communion writ a Book to prove that the constitution obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran Councell upon which the Popes authority of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their allegiance is founded was not decreed by the Fathers nor ever admitted in England but was a private Decree of Pope Innocent the third If all his Fellowes had held the same moderation there had been no need of such Lawes But it is a remediless misery of Societies that when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and the Innocent publick Justice which seeks to prevent the common danger looks upon the whole Society with one eie And if any innocent persons suffer they must not blame the Law but their own Fellowes who gave just occasion for the making of such severe Lawes So we see how many things here were of their own election First they were warned by an Edict not to study in those Seminaries which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in publick hostility with the Crown of England Nevertheless they would not doe it They were commannded to return home by a prefixed time They would not doe it This alone had been sufficient to punish them as Traitors by the ancient lawes of the Land Yet further they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England nor to exercise their priestly Functions there Yet they did it And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Councel That he was come over and would not desist untill he had either turned them to be Roman Catholicks or died upon their Lances To conclude if we view the particular Lawes we shall finde that they looked more upon the Court of Rome then the Church of Rome The Act and Oath of Supremacy were framed in the daies of Henry the eighth by Roman Catholicks themselves The first penall Lawes of this nature that I finde made by Queen Elizabeth were in the sixth year of her reign against those who should maintain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing or refuse the Oath of â—upremay twice The second in the fourteenth year of her reign against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an Heretick Schismatick or Infidell And likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome to reconcile any of the Queens Subjects or Indulgences or Agnus Dei or the like Yet was this never put in execution for six years untill the execution of it was extorted All this either concerned the Court of Rome or such Acts as were not necessary to a Roman Catholick for the injoyment of his conscience A man might beleeve freely what his conscience dictated to him or practise his own religion so he prated not too much nor medled with others Afterwards in the twenty third year of her reign issued out the Proclamation against the English Seminaries wherein her Subjects were bred Pensioners to the enemies of her Crown The last Lawes of this kinde were made in the twenty fourth year of her â—eign against those who should diswade English Subjects from their obedience to their Prince or from the Religion established or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome In all these Lawes though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions and treasons and deprivations and extremest necessity there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen Maryes Priest or any that were ordained within the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving so they were not over busie and medled with others These might have sufficed or officiating to Roman Catholicks if the Pope had pleased But he preferred his own ends before their safty Non his juvenius orta parentibus infecit aequor sanguine These were not principled for his purpose nor of that temper that his affaires required And therefore he erected new Seminaries and placed new Readers according to his own minde And in conclusion forced the Queen to use necessary remedies so save her selfe and the Kingdome These things being premised it will not be difficult to answer to all which R. C. saith First he saith that in all the pretended cases of treason there is no election but of matters of Religion and that they suffer meerly for matters of Religion without any shew of true Treason I confess that Treason is complicated with Religion in it But I deny that they suffer meerly for Religion any more then he that poisoned an Emperour or a Prior in the Sacrament could have been said to suffer for administring the Sacrament and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament or then he who out of blinde obedience to his Superior kills a man can be said to suffer death for his conscience or he who being infected with the Plague and seeking to infect others if he be shot dead in the attempt can be said to suffer for his sickness In so many designs to take away the Queens life in so many rebellions in so many seditious tenets in so many traitorous books and lastly in adhering unto and turning Pensioner to a publick professed Enemy of their Prince and native Country can he see no treason nothing but matters of Religion If he cannot or will not yet they who were more nearly concerned in it had reason to look better about them He asks how I can tearm that politicall Supremacy which is Supremacy in all causes to wit Ecclesiasticall or Religious I answer very well As the King is the Keeper of both Tables to see that every one of his Subjects doe his duty in his place whether Clergy-man or Lay-man and to inflâ—ct politicall punishment upon them who are delinquent And where he saith that Queen Elizabeth challenged more he doth her wrong She Challenged no more And moreover in her first Parliament tooke order to have the head of the English Church left out of her Title He demands further whether Nero by the same right might not have condemned St. Peter and St. Paul of Treason for coming to Rome with forbidden Orders and seeking to seduce his Subjects from the
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
determine causes of Religion The Emperor did not trouble himself much at it But the Pope having created three Spanish Cardinals he forbad them to accept the armes or use the name or habit And not long after published a Reformation of the Clergy conteining twenty three points First of Ordination and Election of Ministers Secondly of the Office of Ecclesiasticall Orders Thirdly of the Office of Deans and Canons Fourthly of Canonicall hours Fifthly of Monasteries Sixtly of Schools and Universities Seventhly of Hospitals Eighthly of the Office of a Preacher Ninthly of the Administration of the Sacraments Tenthly of the Administration of Baptism Eleventhly of the Administration of Confirmation Twelfthly of Ceremonies Thirteenthly of the Masse Fourteenthâ—y of the Administration of Penitence Fifteenthly of the Administration of extreme Unction Sixteenthly of the Administration of Matrimomy Seventeenthly of Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies Eighteenthly of the Discipline of the Clergy and People Nineteenthly of plurality of Benefices Twentithly of the Discipline of the People One and twentithly of Visitations Two and twentithly of Councels Three and twentithly of Excommunication Charles the fifth and the German Dyet did assume to themselves a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes None of our Princes was ever more devoted to Rome then Queen Mary yet when Paul the 4 th revoked Cardinall Poolos Legantine power in England and designed one Petus a Franciscan to come Legate in his place She shut all the Ports of England against all messengers from Rome and commanded all the Briefs and Bulls to be taken from the bearers and delivered unto her So well was she satisfied that no Roman Legate hath any thing to doe in England without the Princes licence But I have brought instances enough untill he be pleased to take notice of them To all which he returns no answer but these generall words Seeing L. D. hath alleged diverse facts of Catholick Princes in disobeying Papall Authority and thence inferreth that they did as much as King Henry who not only disobeyed but denied Papall Authority let us allege both more ancient and greater Emperors who have professed that they had no Authority in Ecclesiasticall causes and avowed Papall Authority After this rate he may survey the whole World in a few minutes Let the Reader judge whether I have not just cause to call upon him for an answer Are they only diverse facts of Catholick Princes By his leave they are both facts and decrees and constitutions and Laws and Canons of the most famous Emperors and Princes of Christendome with their Dyets and Parliaments and Synods and Councels and Universities Or doth it seem to him that they only disobeyed Papall Authority When he reads them over more attentively he will finde that they have not only disobeyed Papall Authority but denied it as he saith Henry the 8 th did in all the principall parts and branches of it which are in controversie between them and us Nay they have not only denied to the Pope that which he cals Papall Authority to Convocate Synods to confirm Synods to make Ecclesiasticall Laws to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to receive the last Appeals in Ecclesiasticall causes but they have exercised it themselves They have disposed of the Papacy they have deposed the Popes they have shut out his Legates they have Appealed from his sentences they have not suffered their Subjects to goe upon his Summons they have caused his Decrees to be torn in pieces most disgracefully and made Edicts and Statutes and pragmaticall sanctions against his usurpations they have regulated the Clergy and reformed the Churches within their Dominions And when they thought fit during their pleasures they have stopped all entercouse with Rome The Kings of Spain suffer no more Appeals from Sicily to the Court of Rome then our Princes from England and exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdction by Delegates which certainly neither they nor other Princes would doe if they did at all believe that the Papacy was an universall Spirituall Monarchy instituted by Christ. But it seemeth that he delighteth more in the use of his sword then of his buckler and in stead of repelling my arguments he busieth himself in making new knots for me to untie He knows well that this is no logicall proceeding And I might justly serve him with the same sauce But I seek only the clear discovery of truth and will pursue his steppes throughout his oppositions The first thing that he objecteth to me is the oath of Supremacy made by King Henry and his Church in which oath saith he are sworn five things First that the King of England is not only Governor but only and supreme Governor Secondly not only in some but in all ecclesiasticall things and causes Thirdly as well in all ecclesiasticall causes as temporall Fourthly that no forrein Prelate hath any spirituall Iurisdiction in England Fifthly all forrein Iurisdiction is renounced This he is pleased to call the first new Creed of the English Protestant Church by which it is become both hereticall and schismaticall Before I give a distinct answer to this objection it will be needfull in the first place to put him in minde of some things which I have formerly demonstrated to him touching this particular which he hath been pleased to pass by in silence First who it was that first presented this Title to King Henry Archbishop Warrham whom Sanders calleth an excellent man and a Popish Convocation Secondly who confirmed this Title unto him Four and twenty Bishops and nine and twenty Abbats in Parliament none dissenting There was not one Protestant among them all Thirdly who were the flatterers of King Henry that preached up his Supremacy and printed books in defence of this Supremacy and set forth Catachismâ—s to instruct the Subjects and teach them what the Supremacy was who contrived and penned this very Oath and were the first that took it themselves and incited all others to take it even Bishop Gardiner Tonstall Heath Bonner Stokesley Thurelby c. all R. C. his Friends the greatest Opposers of the reformation and the roughest Persecuters of Protestants Lastly consider what I cited out of Cardinall Poole That God the Father hath assigned this Office to Christian Emperors that they should act the part of Christ the Son of God And again the Pope as a Priestly Head doth execute the Office of Christ the true Head but we may also truly say that the Emperour doth execute the Office of Christ as a Kingly Head These things being premised to dull the edge of his argument now I proceed to a direct answer and first I charge him with chopping and changing the words of the Oath The words of the Oath are these That the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor in this Realm But in paraphrasing upon them and pressing them he renders them thus not only Governor but only and supreme Governor There is a vast difference between these two to say the King is the only
prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches He referred the cause of Caecilianus an Ecclesiasticall cause to Miltiades Bishop of Rome and Marcus and Rhetecius and Maternus and Marinus as his Delegates or Commissioners visum est mihi it hath seemed good to me c. He accepted Appeals from the judgment of the Bishops He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to doe justice upon Ecclesiasticall Delinquents He sent for the Bishops assembled by his commandement at a Councell first at Tyrus then at Hierusalem that they should repaire with speed to Constantinople evestigio ad castra nostra maturetis to give an account to him of their actions and to shew how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments In a word he medled so much in Ecclesiasticall affaires that he made himself as a common Bishop constituted by God I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanitie we rejoyce but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests Eusebius and other Bishops he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the Minister of God And accordingly they were spoyled of their dignities and cast out of the Cities His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius but which Valentinian which Theodosius where this Epistle is to be found he is silent and leaveth us if it were worth the labour to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay But the truth is there is nothing in it which concerneth this question nothing which we deny The words as they be alleged by him are these All antiquity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome Our question is concerning the Politicall Principality of Kings and Emperours and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power Or at least such a Supremacy of single sovereign monarchichall Power as they require about which our controversie now is A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coyfe and Bench and in some circumstantiall respects a kinde of eminency or principality of Power but no single supremacy so as to be able to crosse their votes with a non obstante Such a supremacy of sovereing single universall power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know either at Rome or elsewhere The Bishops of Rome were so farre from having power over generall Councells that they had no single power over their fellow Patriarchs So farre from having power over Emperours that they have been delegated by Emperours as their Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes have been convened before Emperors and deposed by Emperors Primitive Bishops use to stile Popes their brethren their collegues their fellows but never Ecclesiasticall Princes If he mean the second Valentinian his authority weighs nothing he was a young Novice mis-led by his Arrian Mother a wilfull ill-advised woman If he mean another Valentinian I shall shew him that he exercised this politicall Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall affaies it may be to the questioning of his Prince of Priests His third witness is Theodosius the younger in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus his words are these It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiasticall matters Yet he did meddle with Ecclesticall matters This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures as if himself had been a Bishop This is that Theodosius which made this following Law We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius or obey his wicked Doctrine if they be Bishops be cast out of the holy Churches but if Lay men anathematized This is that Theodosius that convocated the generall Councell of Ephesus by his Authority Royall and sent Candidianus thither to be his Deputy among other things set diligenter inspiceret c. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops so see that no dissensions did arise among them to disturbe the consultations of Synods and to represse them likewise otherwise he might as well have staid at home Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus sed eae lege c. We command Candidianus to goe to this holy Synod but upon this condition that he should have nothing to doe with questions and controversies which concern Doctrines of faith for it is unlawfull for one not registred in the catalogue of Bishops to thrust himself into ecclesiasticall affairs and consultations This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperour to dispute in the Councell about Theologicall questions which it is probable he did not understanding nor to overawe the Bishops or controlle their votes We are of the same minde with Theodosius and say as much as he that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theologicall questions And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Dominions yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads but upon mature advise of free Synods of Ecclesiasticall persons who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs All men know that Candidianus could have no decisive voice in a generall Councell So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keyes of the Church either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order We confesse that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops yet the last Appeal may be to the King We say there are many things which Kings cannot doe in their own persons and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royall authority His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder It is not lawfull for me who am of the People to search curiously such matters let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please The case was this Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire Valens was an Arrian Valentinian an orthodox Christian yet so as he troubled not those who were of a contrary Opinion He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome the orthodox Bishops about the Hellespont and in Bythinia sent their Depuities unto him to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Councell for the establishment of the right Faith wherein they acknowledged him
Consciences then of Papists in those dayes throughout the whole Kingdome of England In the Citie of London alone we finde an hundred and twenty Pastors of Parish Churches whereof fourty were Doctors in Theologie turned out of their Benefices and homes plundred imprisoned and many of them dead under the burthen of their grievous pressures besides all the numerous Dignitaries Prebends and inferior Clergy men belonging to the Cathedrall Church of St. Paul and the Collegiate Church of St. Peter and their respective Quires I could say more touching your Romish Confessors at that time That they refused the Oath of Supremacy more out of compact then Conscience hoping by their unanimity and for fear of wanting means of ordination to necessitate the State to continue them all But when they see how miserably they were deceived and their Churches filled with such as were returned from banishment of whom they dreamed not conjurationis eos poenituit they repented of their foolish plot And when it was too late multi ad Iudices recurrunt contumaciam agnoscunt ac petunt sibi contra pontificem jurare licere many of them run to the Iudges confessed their obstinacy and desired leave to take the Oath as they had done in King Henries dayes But let the faith of this rest upon the Author To my third Argument he giveth no answer in his Survey but what was taken away in the vindication before it was made The sum of my Argument was this That Court which rebelleth against the highest tribunall of the Church assumeth a sovereign Power over it to it self is schismaticall but the Court of Rome rebelleth against the supreme Tribunall or Judicatory of the Militant Church that is the Representative Church or a general Councel The Reader will excuse me if I doe sometimes complicate two or three medios terminos together for brevity sake His first exception is That whereas I should prove that the Papacy is the cause of Schism I doe seek to prove that the Papacy is Schism To say the Papacy is Schism is non sense I hope I may have leave to write common sense But I did say and I doe say that the Court of Rome is in Schism or Schismaticall To say it is in Schism and to say it is the cause of Schism is the same thing for it is not the separation but the cause that makes the Schism They who give just cause of separation are Schismaticall and they who take it are innocent Secondly he demandeth how the Papacy as it is now maintained by many could be a sufficient ground of separation to the Protestants especially of separation from the whole Roman Church I answer very well because it was then and two or three ages before that maintained in the same manner or rather an higher degree by the Court of Rome and some others of the Roman Church though not so many as at this day Our separation from the Court of Rome is totall and absolute because we know no legall Subjection which we owe to the Court of Rome But I know no such absolute separation on our parts from the Church of Rome but only a difference from them in their erroneous Opinions and a forbearance to practise some other things which are made by them conditions of their externall Communion wherein we cannot joyn with them with a good conscience The making of their errors to be essentialls and necessary conditions of Catholick Communion makes the breach appear greater then it is That this is clearly the sense of our Church I have shewed out of the thirtieth Canon So he comes to his main answer That to rebell against a complete generall Councell joyned with the Pope as Head thereof is gross Schism But not to resist an incomplete generall Councell without the Pope This answer is sufficiently confuted in the vindication first by the authority of Saint Gregory who makes it to be schismaticall in the Pope to challenge such an universall headship of Power Secondly by the Popes own Laws and by their professions of obedience to the Canons Thirdly by the Appeales made by Princes and Prelates and Universities from the Popes to generall Councells And lastly by the express Decrees of the Councells of Constance and Basile in the point To which I adde that those very Decrees of generall Councells which have been not only not ratified but opposed by the Popes have nevertheless been evermore received and obeyed as Lawes in the Catholick Church for the authority of the Councell As the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon for equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome was protested against by the Popes Legates in the name and on the behalf of their Master and yet was ever held and practised as an authentick Rule by the Catholick Church and reverenced by Saint Gregory as a part of the Gospell Iustinian the Emperor called the fifth generall Councell at which Vigilius the then Pope refused to be present or to give any consent unto it for which his frowardness he was banished by the Emperor This in R. C. his judgement was an incomplete generall Councell Yet in all succeeding ages and by the Popes themselves it was honored and esteemed as a true general Councell I confess a generall Councell was not held complete in the primitive times when such an assembly might be had without the presence of the five Protopatriarchs by themselves or their Deputies But to think that any one of these either the Roman Patriarch or any other had an Headship of Power over the Councell or a negative voice against the Councell is a most groundless fancy whereof we finde not the least footstep in all antiquity And therefore R. C. might well have forborn his comparison of King and Parliament as altogether impertinent The King was confessedly an Head of Power over the Parliament so was not the Pope over a generall Councell The King had evermore a negative voice in Parliament so had the Pope never in a generall Councell When the Parliament had made up their Billes they preferred them alwaies to the King by way of petition but the Bishops in a generall Councell by way of definition Ego A. definiens subscripsi In a generall Councell the President who is no more then a Prolocutor or Speaker in Parliament makes his last address to the body of the Councell in this sort placet aut non placet doth it please you or not But in Parliament after the Members have voted content or not content the last address must be to the King and he is free to say the King will have it or the King will advise If a generall Councell have not the Rites and Priviledges of a generall Councell unless the Pope be present as the Head thereof and concurre with it to what purpose were those questions so canvased in the Western Church whether a generall Councell be above the Pope and whether a generall Councell can depose
the Pope Doth any man think that our Ancestors were so simple as to question whether the Body be above the Head or to hope that the Pope would concurre willingly to his own deposition This we know for certain that the Councell of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did Decree themselves to be a lawfull complete generall Councell superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures And deposed three Popes at a time And their acts were confirmed in the Councell of Basile To this Decree of the Councell of Constance he giveth two answers First That it is probable that the Councell meant only of doubtfull Popes But I did take away this answer in the vindication two waies First because it is contrary to the text The words of the Councell are these the Pope that is a Pope truely elected and lawfully admitted It is uncertain whether a doubtfull Pope be Pope or no is subject to a generall Councel that is a generall Councel without the presence or concurrence of the Pope such as the Councel of Constance was As well in matter of faith as of manners This is more then doubtfull titles so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed So a Councell may correct the Pope and if they please continue him or if they finde him incorrigible depose him Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles but for faults in faith or manners Neither can they be said to be deposed who are only declared to have been usurpers Secondly I confuted this answer by the execution of the Decree The Councell did not only declare who was the right Pope which is a judiciary act and may be done by an Inferior towards his Superior but they turned out three Popes together whereof one without controversie was the right Pope And so made right to be no right for the publick good of the Church which is a badge of sovereign and legislative Authority His second answer is That this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Martine the fifth This answer was likewise taken away in the vindication First because the Popes confirmation is but a novelty never practised in the ancient Church and signifieth nothing The Pope and his Legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their Legates did And that was all Secondly because Pope Martines title to the Papacy did depend meerly upon the Authority of the Decree If this Decree were not a lawfull Decree of a lawfull generall Councell and such a Councell as had power to depose the former Pope then Pope Martine was no Pope but an usurper and then his confirmation signified nothing also in that respect Last I shewed that it was conciliarly made And what the word conciliarly there signifieth out of the Acts of the Councell And that passage was not intended for a confirmation but an occasionall Speech after the end of the Councell after the Fathers were dismissed in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope by the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania about a seditious Book which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the publick Acts of the Session the Pope answered that he approved what had been conciliarly done To all this he answereth nothing but that the word conciliariter or conciliarly signifieth rather the manner of a Councel then of a Councell Let it be so Is not the decreeing of any thing publickly in the Session the manner of the Councels Acting The Duputies of the Nations were like a Committee of Parliament who have no power to Decree though they be a Committe of the whole House but only to prepare things for the House Now suppose the King at the close of the Parliament being requested to confirm some Acts of a Committe should use the very same expression which Martine the fifth did That he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that Parliament Parliamentariter or Parliamentarily Doth not this evidently confirm all the Acts and conclusions of the Parliament Or what can this in reason exclude but only the Acts of the Committees To say as R. C. saith That he confirmeth only those Acts which were done with due liberation is as much as to say that he confirmeth just nothing at all How shall it be known or who shall be Judg what was done with due deliberation and what was not Neither doth it weigh any thing at all to say as he doth that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations without adding conciliariter for first it is a rule in Law that abundans non vitiat A word or two too much doe no hurt Secondly the Deputies of the Nations did sit and Act by the Authority of the Councell and consequently their Acts were mediatly and in some sort the Acts of the Councel Lastly whether the Decree of the Councel were confirmed or not to me seemeth all one The end of Convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those respective Churches from which they are sent and to witnesse the received belief We see by their Votes what was the received opinion of the Occidentall Church And we see otherwise suffiâ—ently what was the received opinion of the Eastern Southern and Northern Churches So as the Roman Court will not be able to finde one nationall Church of that age throughout the World to maintain their exorbitant claimes To my fourth argument drawn from the Popes challenge of all Episcopall Jurisdiction and consequently the breaking of all the lines of Apostolicall Succession except his own and to my two additionall arguments concerning the infallibility of the Popes judgment and his power over Princes he answereth nothing but that they are not defined by the Roman Church and therefore cannot be a cause of departing from her communion Neither have I indevoured to charge the crime of Schism upon the Roman Church in generall but upon the Roman Court and the violent propugners thereof whose Tenets these are I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendor of an Apostolicall Church and the principall Protropatriarchate and its beginning of unity Notwithstanding the weaknesse of his answers yet he laies down this for a conclusion That whatsoever I now pretend our separation was schismatically begun And thence inferres upon a ground brought by me Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tract is temporis non convalescit That it is schismaticall still First I denie his ground the separation was not made by us but by them what we did was not schismaticall but just and necessary Secondly his inference is grossely mistaken and the rule which I brought altogether misapplyed That which was invalid from the beginning cannot become valid prescription or tract of time but it may become valid by subsequent Acts of Parties
the Councel That there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent and ingageth himself to secure it The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany the redress which they sough was in Germany Germany not Italy had been the proper place for the Councel R. C. proceedeth the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope It may be so but not in a legall or judiciary way He confesseth That in doubtfull cases there ought to be four distinct persons the accuser the witness the person accused and the Iudge but not in notorious rebellion in which case there needs neither witness nor accuser And doth not this merit the reputation of a doubtfull case wherein so great a part of the occidental Church are ingaged who are ready to prove evidently that he who is their accuser and usurps the office of their Judge is the notorious Rebell himself I confess that in some cases the notority of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the Law to be Rebellion or Heresie or the like The Popes Rebellion hath been already condeâ—â—ed in the Councel of Constance and his heretical maintaining of it in the Councel of Basile But the Protestants renouncing of his usurped authority hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other Yet he saith The Protestants were condemned not only by the Councel of Trent but by the Patriarch of Constantinople to whom they appealed One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise would beleeve that the Protestants in general had appealed from the Councel of Trent and were juridically condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople Who gave the Appellants procuration to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the Appeal Where is the condemnation Is the English Church included therein No such thing The case was this One or two forrein particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them And he delivered his opinion it should seem as R. C. conceiveth more to the advantage of the Romanists thâ—n of the Protestants This he calleth an Appeal and a condemnation I crave pardon of the Reader if I doe not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarchs answer It is thirty years since I see it Neither doe I know how to procure it Thus farre I will charge my memorie that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated and the Patriarchs answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome then of the Church of England The right stating of the question is all in all When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way they will make them more apposite more to the purpose But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him goe I mean Cyrillus since the time of Hieremy whom that learned Gentleman Sir Thomas Roe then Ambassador for our late King at Constantinople had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church He published a Treatise of his own much about the year 1630 which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a confession of the Christian Faith so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England that it might seem rather to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury then by the Patriarch of Constantinople I will cull out a few flowers and make a posie for him to let him see whether the Patriarchs of Constantinople doe condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome In the second Chapter he declareth That the authority of the Scripture is above the authority of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for it is not equall or alike to be taught of the holy Ghost and to be taught of man In his tenth Chap. he declareth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall men can by no means be the head of the Church and that our Lord Iesus Christ alone is the head of it In the thirteenth Chapter he asserteth justification by Faith alone just according to the Doctrine of the Church of England In the fifteenth Chapter he acknowledgeth but two Sacraments In the seventeenth Chapter he professeth a true reall presence of Christ the Lord in the Eucharist just as we doe and rejecteth the nâ—w devise of transubstantiation In the eighteenth Chapter he disclaimeth purgatorie c. All this he declarâ—th to be the Faith which Christ taught the Apostles preached and the orthodox Church ever held and undertaketh to make it good to the World And after in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him he excludeth the Apocryphall Books out of the Canon of holy Scripture and condemneth the worship of Images In a word he is wholy ours And to declare to the World that he was so he resolved to dedicate his confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England When this Treatise was first published it is no marvel if the Court of Rome and the congregation for propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it and use their uttermost indevor to ruine him But he justified it before the Ambassadors of Roman Catholick Princes then remaining at Constantinople and came off fairly in despite of all those who did calumniate him and cast false aspersions upon him Besides his own autograph and the testimonies of the Ambassadors then present if there had been nothing else to justifie this truth the instructions given by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope alone had been sufficient proof and the plots which they contrived against him either to have him taken away by death or deposition For at the same time they decryed the Treatise here as supposititious and accused him there as criminous for being the Author of it But God delivered him out of their hands He pleadeth moreover That the Bishops assembled in Trent were not the Popes Ministers Yet he knoweth right well that they had all taken an Oath of obedience to the Pope for maintenance of the Papacy Were these equall Judges I confess there were many noble souls amongst them who did limit their Oath according to the Canons of the Church But they could doe nothing being over-voted by the Popes Clients and Pensioners He asketh who were the accusers witnesses and Iudges of the Pope in the Parliament 1534 but King Henry himself and his Ministers I answer that they were not King Henries Ministers but the Trustees of the Kingdome they were not sworn to maintain King Henrie's usurpations they acted not by a judiciary but by a legislative power neither did they make any new Law but only declare the ancient Law of the Land Otherwise they medled not with the person of