did not know who were obstinate and who were not who erred for want of light and who erred contrary to the light of their own consciences The like Spirit did possess Optatus who in the treatise cited by R. C. doth continually call the Donatists Brethren not by chance or inanimadvertence but upon premeditation he justifieth the title and professeth himself to be obliged to use it he would not have done so to Idolaters And a little before in the same Book he wonders why his Brother Parmenian being only a Schismatick would rank himself with Hereticks who were falsifiers of the Creed that is the old primitive Creed which the Councel of Trent it self placed in the front of their Acts as their North-star to direct them I wish they had steered their course according to their compass To cut off a lim from a man or a branch from a tree saith he is to destroy them most true But the case may be such that it is necessary to cut off a limb to save the whole body as in a gangreen The word of errour is a canker or gangreen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not cancer a crabfish because it is retrograde which was Anselmes mistake So when superfluous branches are lopped away it makes the tree thrive and prosper the better His second conclusion from hence is that there can be no just or sufficient cause given for Schism because there can be no just cause of committing so great a sinne And because there is no salvation out of the Church which he proveth out of St. Cyprian and St. Austin to little purpose whilest no man doubts of it or denies it And hence he inferres this corollary that I say untruely that the Church of Rome is the cause of this Schism and all other Schisms in the Church because there ean be no just cause of Schism My words were these that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church There is a great difference between these two But to dispell umbrages and to clear the truth from these mists of words We must distinguish between the Catholick oecumenicall Church and particular Churches how eminent soever As likewise between criminous Schism and lawfull separation First I did never say that the Catholick or universall Church either did give or could give any just cause of separation from it yea I ever said the contrary expresly And therefore he might well have spared his labour of citing St. Austin and St. Cyprian who never understood the Catholick Church in his sense His Catholick Church was but a particular Church with them And their Catholick Church is a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads with him But I did say and I doe say that any particular Church without exception whatsoever may give just cause of separation from it by heresy or Schism or abuse of their authority in obtruding errours And to save my self the labour of proving this by evidence of reason and by authentick testimonies I produce R. C. himself in the point in this very Survey Neither can there be any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of her heresy or schism and so may require profession of her heresy as a condition of communicating with her In which case division from her is no schism or sinne but virtue and necessary And when I urge that a man may leave the communion of an erroneous Church as he may leave his Fathers house when it is infected with some contagious sicknesse with a purpose to returne to it again when it is cleansed he answers that this may be true of a particular Church but cannot be true of the universall Church Such a particular Church is the Church of Rome Secondly I never said that a particular Church did give or could give sufficient cause to another Church of criminous Schism The most wicked society in the world cannot give just cause or provocation to sinne Their damnation is just who say let us doe evil that good may come of it Whensoever any Church shall give sufficient cause to another Church to separate from her the guilt of the Schisme lies not upon that Church which makes the separation but upon that Church from which the separation is made This is a truth undenyable and is confessed plainly by Mr. Knott They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith practise liturgy and use of Sacraments may truely be said to have bene Hereticks by departing from the pure faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the externall communion of the true uncorrupted Church We maintain that the Church of Rome brought in these corruptions in Faith Practise Liturgie and use of the Sacraments and which is more did require the profession of her errors as a condition of communicating with her And if so then by the judgement of her own Doctors the Schism is justly laid at her own door and it was no sinne in us but virtue and necessary to separate from her I acknowledge that St. Austin saith praescindendae unitatis nulla est justa necessitas there is no sufficient cause of dividing the unity of the Church But he speaks not of false doctrines or sinful abuses in the place alledged as if these were not a sufficient cause of separation He proves the express contrary out of the words of the Apostle Gal 1.8 and 1. Tim. 1.3 He speaks of bad manners and vitious humors and sinister affections especially in the preachers as envy contention contumacy incontinency This was his case then with the Donatists and is now the case of the Anabaptists That these are no sufficient cause of dividing unity he proveth out of Phil. 1. v. 15.16.17.18 He saith that in these cases there is no sufficient cause cum disciplinae severitatem consideratio custodiendae pacis refraenat aut differt when the consideration of preserving peace doth restrain or delay the severity of Ecclesiasticaâ—ll discipline He saith not that in other cases there can be no sufficient cause what doth this concern us who beleeve the same His second note is this that Protestants have forsaken the Pope the Papacy the universal Roman Church and all the ancient Christian Churches Grecian Armenian Ethiopian in their communion of Sacraments and to clear themselves from Schism must bring just cause of separation from every one of these I answer that we are separated indeed from the Pope and Papacy that is from his primacy of power from his universality of jurisdiction by divine right which two are already established from his superiority above general Councels and infallibility of judgment which are the most received Opinions
receive it when God shall reveal it to them How far this may excuse not the crime but their persons from formall Schisme either a toto or a tanto I determine not but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Reformation of the western Church Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopall Jurisdiction and the power of ordeining and confirming but the Court of Rome by their commissions and delegations for avaritious ends And could they think that the world would beleeve that necessity is not as strong and effectuall a dispensation as their mercicinary Buls It is not at all materiall whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct Oâ—ders or distinct degrees of the same Order the one subordinate to the other whether Episcopal ordination doe introduce a new Character or extend the old For it is generally confessed by both parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that the same power and authority is necessary to the extensioâ— of a Character or grace given by ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not humane but divine These avaritious practises of that Court though it be not commonly observed were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiasticall Discipline which doe now so much disturb the peace of the Church The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I endeavor to clear the English Church from Schisme only in relation to the Church of Rome not to all other Churches It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads or so many Packs of Hereticks and Schismaticks making the Roman Church and the Catholick Church to be Convertibles Secondly it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt to make a defence before we were accused None of those Churches nor any body else that ever I heard of hath accused us for deserting them before R. C. and he hath received his answer If it had been needfull the Church of Rome had saved us that labour by excommunicating them before hand I only wish more intelligence between us and them My third fault is That I endeavour principally to justifie our separation from the Roman Church for the personall faults of Popes And my fourth fault is That I justifie our separation from the Court of Rome for their evill manners That this is not lawfull to doe he proves by sundry authorities and arguments I think the rather because no man denyes it or doubts of it or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we doe deny it If he had pleased he might have contracted these two faults into one The Pope and his Court make but one consistory and personall faults and evill manners are the same thing It had been needfull to have joyned them together to give them a little more weight for being twisted they weigh not half a graine First I deny that we hold personal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation Secondly that separation which was made was made by themselves not by us Thirdly I deny that the Pope or Court of Rome ever had right to any Jurisdiction over us And if they ever had any pretence of right we had other manner of grounds for separation than evill manners As new Articles of faith obtruding of idolatrous superstitions and sinfull duties gross usurpation of the rights of the soveraign Prince and all orders and degrees of Subjects the overthrow or endangering of the publick peace and tranquillity of the Kingdome unlawfull oaths contrary to our allegiance to our King contrary to that duty which all Christians doe owe to generall Councells and lastly the Popes quitting of his Patriarchall power Yet by his leave tyranny and oppression and rapine are somewhat more than personall faults and may be just grounds to Princes and Common-wealths to substract obedience untill there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses Some personall faults as Simony aud Schism may give just occasion to Christians to separate from pretended Popes But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope not his Episcopall Office which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor his Patriarchall Office which was instituted by the Church but his pretended Monarchicall Office whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunall of the Church that is a generall Councell whereof more shall be said in due place These faults give just cause to a generall Councell to separate the Popes themselves and to take away their domineering Courts or to a soveraign Prince with a Nâ—tionall Councell to shake off their tyrannicall Yoke CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Question IN stating the Question I observed this Method first to shew what Ecclesiasticall Separations were not Schismaticall As first those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat without attempting to make any parties as those between St. Paul and Barnabas St. Hierome and Ruffinus St. Chrysostome and Epiphanius Secondly premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained if they forbear to censure one another and be ready to submit to the determination of a generall Councell are not schismaticall as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptization Thirdly where just cause of separation is given for there the Separaters are innocent and they who give the cause are Schismaticks Fourthly separation from an erroneous Church or Pastor in their errors Of all these and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all but passeth silently by them without either granting denying or distinguishing The first Exception that he takes is against my two supposed definitions of Schisme the former is Schisme is a criminous scissure rent or division in the Church an ecclesiasticall sedition like to a mutiny in an Army or a faction in a Sate The second meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own True Schisme is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church Really I doe not wonder if my definitions be not complete I doe not take my self to have so happy a vein that all that I utter should be a definition I did not hold it needfull nor had any purpose to define Schisme but only to explane it which my very words might have taught him Schisme signifies a criminous scissure not is but signifies And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition like a mutiny in an Army or faction in a State Similitudes are apt to illustrate but not to define The definition and the thing defined are ever the same Those
it But we doe not think Schismaticks to be equally in the Church with Catholicks nor to be capable of salvation without repentance particular or generall He saith That universall Schism or a division from the whole Church is alwaies wicked because the universall Church can give no just cause of division from her And he proves it out of St. Austin His words are these sâ— possunt quod fieri non potest aliqui habere justam causam qua communionem suam separent a communione orbis terrarum If any could have a just cause to separate their commuion from the whole communion of the whole World which cannot be Let him alwaies bring such proofs which concern not us but make directly against himself It is they who have separated themselves from the communion of the whole World Grecian Russian Armenian Abissine Protestant by their censures We have made no absolute separation even from the Roman Church it self I say more that all Schism whether universall or particular is wicked But still he confounds Schism which is alwaies unlawfull with separation which is many times lawfull I take the word according to its use not according to its derivation Hear R.C. his ingenuous confession in this place which overthrowes and casts flat to the ground all that he hath endeavoured to build in this Survey Neither indeed can there by any substantiall division from any particular Church unlesse she be really hereticall or schismaticall I say really because she may be really hereticall or schismaticall and yet morally a true particular Church because she is invincibly ignorant of Heresie or Schism and so may require profession of her Heresie as a condition of communicating with her in which case division from her is no Schism or sin but virtue and necessary Applie but this to the Roman and English Churches and the controversy is ended The Roman Church is such a particular Church as he hath here described The English Church hath been separated but we will suppose that it had seperated it self from the Roman In this case by his own confession the Schism lies at the dore of the Roman Church from which the separation was made if they separated first from the pure primitive Church which was before them not locally but morally Yet saith he this erroneous Church is still morally a true particular Church either this Church hath not all the essentials of a Christian Church and then how doth it still continue a true Church Or it hath all the essentials and then a true Church in substance may give just ground to separate from her in materiall Heresie and Schism I will be as free with him concerning the universall Church If any man or Society of Christians separate themselves from the united communion of the whole Catholick Church dispersed throughout the World I cannot excuse him from Schism For whether the Catholick Church of this present age may erre or not this is certain she cannot erre universally in any thing that is necessary to Salvation nor with obstinacy And other inferiour errours if there be any such are not of weight enough to yeeld sufficient ground of separation from the communion of the Catholick Church united But for the divided parts of the Catholick Church a man may differ from all of them in inferiour points some in one thing some in another wherein they differ one from another and separate from some of them in their errors without criminous Schism And yet maintain a perfect union with the Catholick Church united I must not here forget to put R. C. in minde of sundry propositions laid down by me in this place tending much to the clearing of this present controversy all which he passeth by untouched as this That externall communion may sometimes be lawfully suspended or withdrawn That there is not the like necessity of communicating in all externals That Catholick communion implies not unity in all opinions That inferiours in some cases may lawfully substract communion from their Superiours and in speciall the Bishop of Rome that in tract of time abuses will creep into Christian Churches and ought to be reformed Only whereas I said in the vindication that the ancient Britannick Churches were never judged that is censured by a judgement of Jurisdiction to be Schismaticks for their different observation of Easter he saith they were judged Schismaticks both by Catholicks of that time and since and Protestants and that he hath proved it in one of his Treatises I never see his treatise but I know his manner of proof well enough I say it over again that I doe not believe that they were ever judged Schismaticks for it either by the Church or by a Councel or by any lawfull or supposed Superiour which shews plainly that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome For it is not credible that he should excommunicate the Asiatick Bishops for that observation and suffer his own Subjects to differ from him under his Nose which is the only reason why I urged it And I expect the proof of the contrary at the Greeks Calends My assertion is negative that they were not sentenced as Schismaticks this is affirmative that they were censured The burthen of the proof lies upon him Let him shew who judged them when and where or that they were censured at all I shewed cleerly in the vindication out of the Colloquy between the Catholicks and Donatists at Carthage that the Catholick Church is no Church of one denomination but the whole Christian World True saith he Neither the Church of the City of Rome nor of Africk is the Catholick Church but the whol Church of Christ. By the Church of Rome I understand not either the Church of the City of Rome or the Diocesse of Rome or the Patriarchate of Rome but all Churches of the Roman communion which altogether doe not make the fourth part of the Christian World yea saith he but the whole Church is not such a multitude or multitudes of Christians who agreed only in Fundamentals but disagree in other points of Faith and differ wholy in Communion of Sacraments All these great multitudes of Christians he feareth not to call a masse of Monsters and an Hydra of many Heads because they are not wholly one in profession of Faith Communion of Sacraments and lawfull Ministery as that Catholick primitive Church was I wonder he should forget their own distinction of the virtual representative and essentiall Church that is these multitudes of dispersed Christians I hope there be others that will not sleight them so much I confesse that primitive Catholick Church had an exact communion in all essentials or fundamentals and in many other things But that they had differences also of lesser moment in points of Doctrine and Discipline and forms of Administration of the holy Sacraments and Liturgies no man can doubt that hath his eies in his head Yet these lesser inconsiderable differences could
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
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