his First Governourship are but generall unsignificant Termes which may agree as well to a beginning of Vnity or Primacy of Order as to an absolute Monarchy or plenitude of power If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly particulars began the breach particulars must stop rhe breach I have given him an account what particular Differences we have with him concerning St. Peter what particular Differences we have with him concerning the Pope let him apply him self to those aud not make continuall Excursions as he doth out of the Lists When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church as a Bishop in his Diocesse as a Metropolitan in his Province as the Bishop of an Apostolicall See and Successour of St. Peter I expected thaÌ„kes there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps without a new conflict But behold the evill natures or evill manners of this Age I am accused for this of frivolousnesse and insincerity Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology that whensoever the case commeth to be solidly discussed it will be found that the principall grounds if I had said the onely grounds I had not said much amisse of the Popes pretended Monarchy are the just rights and Privileges of his Patriarchateship his Protopatriarchateship and his Apostolicall Chaire mistaken for Royalties for want of good Distinction I know the Court of Rome who have been accustomed in these latter times to milke the purses of their Clients doe not love such a dry Primacy as he phraseth it but where they have no more right and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges they must have patience perforce His Parallel between the King of England and the Pope will be then to some purpose when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy untill then it is a mere begging of the Question what a grosse Solecisme that is in Logick he cannot chuse but know But since he is favourably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papall power so they believe the Substance of it and yet he himself either cannot or dare not determin what the Substance of Papall power is he might out of his Charity have compassion and not stile us Mountebankes who know no difference between Roman Catholiks and our selves about the Papacy but onely about the extent of Papall power Although he stile us hereticks now yet he was lately one of us himself and would have continued so longer if he had understood himself better or the times bene less Clowdy Let him call it Substance let him call it extent let him call it what he will I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy let him satisfy them as well as he â—an and let truth prevaile We have not â—enounced the substance of the Papacy exâ—ept the substance the Papacy doe consist â—n Coactive power I side with no parties â—ut honour the Church of England and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur He telleth his Reader that I grant the whole question where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over as the Bishop of â—n Apostolicall Church or Successor of St. Peter Much good may it doe him As if every Bishop of an Apostolicall Church were straight way an universall Monarch or as if Authority did alwaies necessarily imply jurisdiction or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legall judge I had reasoÌ„ to place a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in my Climax after a Patriarch for the larger extension of his Authority every where not for the higher intension of his jurisdiction any where I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter by the ordinance of Christ in this Privilege to be the Prince and Soveraign of the Church endowed with a single Soveraignty of power that the Great Councell of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equall Privileges to the Patriarch af Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperiall City more then the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument that the great Councell of Chalcedon did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople upon the Imperiall Dignity of those two Cities and to much more which is urged there against him he is as mute as a Fish but to the former part he answereth that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain superiour in Iurisdiction though they had equall Privileges Very pretty indeed He would have his Readers to believe that a Soveraign and his Subjects have equall Privileges Equalls have no power one over another there may be a Primacy of Order among Equalls but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peters Privilege to be Prince of the Apostles And doth not he tell us that this Privilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome Then if the Bishop of Constantinople have equall Privileges with the Bishop of Rome he is equall to him in this Privilege which descended froÌ„ S. Peter Let him listen to the eight and twentieth Canon of that Councell where having repeated and confirmed the decree of the Generall Councell of Constantinople to the same purpose they conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople moved with the same consideration did give equall Privileges to the See of new Rome Rightly judging that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equall Privileges with the ancient Imperiall City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiasticall affaires as well as it being the second in Order from it And in the last sentence of the Iudges upon the Review of of the Cause The Archbishop of the Imperiall City of Constantinople or new Rome must enjoy the same Privileges of honour and have the same power out of his own Authority to ordain MetropolitaÌ„s in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocesses That is as much in Law as to say have equall Iurisdiction for all other rights doe follow the right of Ordination But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon telling us that it was no free Act but voted tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Councell Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be It was done before the Bishops had their License to depart It had a secâ—nd hearing and was debated by the Popes own Legates on his behalf before the most glorious judges and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Councell This was one of those four
truth of what I said take the very words of two Canons of that Councell But if a Clerk have a cause against his own Bishop or against another Bishop let him be Iudged by the Synod of the Province but if a Bishop or a Clerke have a Complaint against the Metropolitan of the same Province let him repaire either to the Primate of the Diocesse or the See of their royall City of Constantinople aend let him be judged there Wee see every Primate that is to say every Patriarch in generall in his own Diocesse or Patriarchate and the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular out of his own Diocesse is equalled by the Councell of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome The same in effect is decreed in the seventeenth Canon that if there shall happen any Difference concerning the Possessions of the Churches it shall be lawfull to them who affirm themselves to be grieved to sue before the Holy Synod of the Province but if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan let him be judged by the Primate of the Diocesse or by the holy See of Constantinople I have read those silly Evasions which your greatest Schollars are forced to make use of for answers to these downright Canons Sometimes by Primate of the Diocesse which signifieth all Patriarchs they understand and the Pope Do men use such improper expressions which no man can understand in penning of Lawes Is it not a great Condiscension for the Visible Monarch of all Christendome to stoupe to so meane a Title as the Primate of one single Diocesse But alas it will do him no good For if it were taken in this sense it were the most uniust Canon in the world to deprive all Patriarchs of their Patriarchall Iurisdiction except the Patriarch of Rome and Constantinople The Councell which is so carefull to preserve the Bishop his right and the Metropolitan his right could not be so carelesse to destroy Patriarchall right or the Patriarchs themselves who were present at the making of this Canon so stupid to joine in it At other times they tell us that this is to be understood onely of the first Instance not of Appeales This is weaker and weaker What hath a Metropolitan to doe with private causes of the first instance out of his own Bishoprick What have the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople to doe to Iudge causes of the first Instance in other Patriarchates The case is cleare if any man be grieved by his Bishop he may appeale to his Metropolitan and a Synod and if any man be grieved by his Metropolitan he may appeale to his Patriarch And if this absurd sēse which they Imagin were true yet the Bishop of Constantinople might receive Appeales from all parts of the world as well as the Bishop of Rome Let them winde and wrest and turn things as they can they shall never be able to reconcile the Papall Pretensions with the Councell of Chalcedon I have neither changed my mind nor my note concerning Eleutherius his Letter to King Lucius I did I doe esteem it to be of dubious Faith So much I intimated if it be not counterfeit So much he intimated as much as we have Records in our Histories Is it necessary with him to inculcate the same doubt over and over so often as we may take occasion Thus far then we are of accord but in the rest we differ wholy He is positive as much as we have Records the Popes Authority doth appeare I am as positive as much as we have Records the Kings Authority doth appeare For if those Records be true Eleutherius left the Legislative part to King Lucius and his Bishops This was enough to answer him He addeth though our Faith relieth on immediate Tradition for its certain Rule and not upon Fragments of old Authors that is in plain English upon his bare word without any Authority How should a man prove ancient Tradition but by Authors Yet after all this flourish he produceth us not one old Author but St. Prosper a stranger to our affaires and him to no purpose◠who saith onely what he heard in Italy That Pope Celestine sent St. German in his own stead to free the Britons from Pelaginisme and converted the Scots by Palladius If all this were as true as Gospell it signifieth just nothing I have shewed formerly that there is no Act of Iurisdiction in it but onely of the Key of Knowledge He rejoineth that he relied on these words vice sua in his own stead which sheweth that it belonged to his Office to doe it Why should it not The Key of Order belongeth to a Bishop as well as the Key of Iurisdiction And more especially to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as Pope Celestine was and in such a case as that was the Pelagian Controversy to testify the Apostolicall Tradition he was bound by his Office to doe it and he trusted S. German to doe it in his place All this is nothing to the purpose there is no Act of Iurisdiction in the Case but of Charity and Devotion Yet if it were not altogether impertinēt to the purpose we have in hand I should shew him that there is ten times better ground to believe that it was done by a French Synod then by Pope Celestine not out of an obscure Author but out of Authentick undoubted Histories as Constātius in the Life of S. German Venerable Bede Mathew Westminster and many others Is it not strange that they being so much provoked are not able to produce a proofe of one Papall Act of Iurisdiction done in Britain for the first six hundred years Here he catcheth hold at a saying of mine which he understandeth no more then the Man in the Moone that all other rights of Iurisdiction doe follow the right of Ordination which he taketh as though I meant to make Ordination it self to be an Act of Iurisdiction though I deny it and distinguish it from it To make the Reader to understand it we must distinguish between actuall Ordination and a right to ordaine Actuall Ordination where there was no precedent Obligation for that person to be ordeined by that Bishop doth imply no Iurisdiction at all but if there was a precedent right in the Ordeiner to ordein that man and a precedent Obligation in the person Ordeined to be ordeined by that Bishop then it doth imply all manner of Iurisdiction suitable to the Quality of the Ordeiner as if he were a Patriarch all Patriarchall Iurisdiction if he were a Metropolitan all Metropoliticall Iurisdiction if he were a Bishop all Episcopall Iurisdiction And the Inference holdeth likewise on the Contrary side that where there is no right precedent to Ordein nor Obligation to be ordeined there is no Iurisdiction followeth but I shewed out of our own Histories and out of the Roman Registers so far as they are set down by Platina that the Bishop of Rome had no right to ordein our British Primates but that they
with Sâ— Peter nor with any other about the privileges of St. Peter Let him be First Chiefe or Prince of the Apostels in that sense wherein the Ancient Fathers stiled him so Let him be the First Ministeriall Mover And why should not the Church have recourse to a prime Apostle or Apostolicall Church in doubtfull cases The learned Bishop of Winchester of whom it is no shame for him to learn might have taught him thus much not onely in his own name but in the name of the King and Church of England Neither is it questioned among us whether St. Peter had a Primacy but what that Primacy was And whether it were such an one as the Pope doth now Challenge to him self and you challenge to the pope But the King doâ—h not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the Apostles I wonder how it commeth to passe that he who commonly runneth over in his expressions should now on a suddain become so dry upon this Subject If this be all be needed not to have forsaken the Communion of the Church of England for any great Devotion that he beareth to St. peter more then wee But yet wee dare not rob the rest of the Apostles to cloath St. Peter Wee say clearly with St. Cyprian Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit petrus pari consortio praediti honoris Poâ—estatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficisciâ—ur Primatus Petro daâ—ur ut una christi Ecclesia una caâ—hedr a monstretur The rest of the Apostles were even the same thing that Peter was endowed with an equall Fellowship both of honour and power but the beginning commeth from Vnity the primacy is given to Peter to signify one church and one chaire It is wel known that St. Cyprian made all the Bisshop ricks in the World to be but one masse Episcopatus unus est Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus whereof every Bishop had an entire part cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur All that he attributeth to St. Peter is this beginning of Vnity this primacy of Order this preheminence to be the Chief of Bishops To be Bishop of the principall Church from whence Sacerdot all Vnity did spring Yet I esteem St. Ciprian as fauorable an Expositor to the See of Rome as any they wil find out of their own Chaire that was no more interessed in that See This primacy neither the Ancients nor wee doe deny to St. Peter of Order of Place of preheminence if this first Movership would serve his turn this controversy were at an end for our parts But this Primacy is over leane The Court of Rome have no Gusto to it They thirst after a visible Monarchy upon earth an absolute Ecclesiasticall Soveraignty A power to make Canons to abolish Canons to dispense with Canons to impose pensions to dispose dignities to decide Controversies by a single Authority This was that which made the breach not the innocent Primacy of St. Peter as I shall demonstrate by evident proofes as cleare as the noone day light Observe Reader that Mr. Serjeant is making another Vagare our of the lists to seeke for his Adversary where he is sure not to find him here after if he have a mind to employ his pen upon this subject and not to barke at the Moonshine in the water let him endeavour to demonstrate these foure things which wee deny indeed First that each Apostle had not the same power over the Christian world by virtue of Christ Commission As my Father senâ— mee so send I you which St. Peter had Secondly that St. Peter ever excercised a single Iurisdiction over the persons of the rest of the Apostles more then they over him besides and over and above his Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity Thirdly that St. Peter a lone had his Commission granted to him by Christ as to an Ordinary Pastour to him and his Successors And all the rest of the Apostles had their CoÌ„missions onely as Delegates for term of life This new hatched Distinction being the foundation of the present Papacy I would be glad to see one good author for it who writ within a thoâ—sand yeares after Christ. Lastly that the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction rested in St. Peter alone and was exercised by him alone and not by the Apostolicall College During the hystory of the Acts of the Apostles Now let us proceed from St. Peter to the Pope which is the second part of his rule of Government And that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of St. Peter inherited from him this Privilige in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles And actually exercised this power in all the Countreyes which kept Communion with the Church of Rome what Privilege To be the first Bishop the Chiefe Bishop the principall Bishop the first mover in the Church just as S. Peter was among the Apostles we have heard of no other Privilege as yet If a man would be pleased ou of meer pitty to his starving cause to suppose thus much what good would it doe him Doth he think that the pope or the court of Rome would ever accept of such a Papacy as this or thanke him for his double diligence He must either be meanly versed in the Primitive Fathers or give little credit to them who will deny the Pope to succced St Peter in the Roman Bishoprick or will envy him the Dignity of a Patriarck with in his just Bounds But the Breach between Rome and England was not about any Episcopall Metropolitical or Patriarchall rightes A Patriarch hath more power in his proper Bishoprick then in his province and more in his province then in the rest of his Patriarchate But papall power is much greater then any Bishop did ever challenge in his own Diocesse In my answer to his Assumtion I shal shew sufficiently who they were that Brake this Bond of Vnion and are the undoubted Authors of Schisme But before I come to that I would know of him how the Pope did inherit all those Privileges which he claimeth from S. Peter or how he holds them by Christs own ordination in holy Scripture First all the Eastern Churches doe affirm Confidently that the most of these Privileges were the Legacyes of the Church representative not Christ or St. Peter And it seemeth to be very true by that of the Councell of Sardica Si vobis placet Sancti Petri memoriam honoremus If all these Priuileges were the popes inheritance it was not wel done of old Osius to put it upon a Si placet content or not content and to assigne no better a reason then the memory of a Predecessour It semeth likewise to be true by the Councel of Chalcedon which attributeth the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Decrees of the Fathers and the dignity of that imperiall City And when the popes
affirm That neither the King of England nor the Church of England neither Convocation nor Parliament did breake his two Necessary Bonds of Christian Vnity or either of them or any part of either of them But that the Very Breakers and Violaters of these Rules were the Pope and Court of Rome They did breake his Rule of Faith by adding new points to the Necessary Doctrin of saving Truth which were not the Legaceyes of Christ and his Apostles nor delivered unto us by Universall and perpetuall Tradition The Pope and Court of Rome did breake his second Rule of Vnity in Discipline by obtruding their excessive and intolerable usurpations vpon the Christian world and particularly upon the Church of England as necessary Conditions of their Communion It appeareth plainly by comparing that which hath been said with his positioÌ„ of the case that after all his Bragges of undeniable evidence and unquestionable certeinty he hath quite missed the question We joine with him in his rule of Faith Wee oppose not St. Peters Primacy of Order and he him self dare not say that St. Peter had a larger or more extended power then the rest of his Fellow Apostles And though wee cannot force our understandings to assent that after the death of S. Peter Linus or Cletus or Clemens or Anacleâ—us were Superiours to S. Iohn and had actuall Iurisdiction over him who had as large a commission immediatly from Christ as S. Peter himselfe and larger then any succeeding Romane Bishop ever had Yet to shew him how little wee are concerned in it and for his clearer conviction wee are willing to suppose that they were his Superiours and give him leave to make all the advantage of his second Rule which he can in this cause And here if I regarded not the satisfaction of my self and the Reader more then his opposition I might withdraw my hand from the Table But I am so great a Friend of Ingenuity that I will for once discharge his Office and shew the World demonstratively and distinctly what Branches of Papall power were cast out of England by Henry the eighth upon which consideration the weight of the whole Controversy doth lye For it is agreed between us that if it appeare by rigorous Evidence that all those Branches of Papall power which were renounced and cast out of England by Henry the eight were grosse Vsurpattons then his renouncing was no eriminall Breach but a lawfull self enfranchisement And by undeniable consequence the Guilt of â—chism resteth upon them who made the Vsurpations that is the Pope and Court of Rome I adde further upon the equity of my second Ground that although Henry the eight had cast out something more then be ought yet if wee hold not out more then wee ought and be ready to admitt all which ought to be admitted by us then we are innocent and free from the Guilt of Schism and it resteth soly upon them who either will have more then their due or nothing Wheresoever the fault is there the Guilt of Schisme is If the fault be single the Guilt is single if the fault be mutuall the Guilt is mutuall And for rigorous Evidence There cannot possibly be any Evidence more demonstrative what Papall power was cast out of England then the very Acts of Parliaments themselves by which it was cast out Let us view them all The first Act made in the Reign of Henry the eight which hath any referente to Rome is the Act for holding Plurality of Benefices against the lawes of the land by dispensation from the Court of Rome making licenses for non Residence from the Court of Rome to be voide and the party who procureth such Licenses for Pluralityes or Non-residence to forfeyt twenty pounds and to lose the profits of that Benefice which he holdeth by such dispensation It were a pretty thing indeed if the Church and Kingdome should make necessary lawes and the Pope might give them liberty to break them at his pleasure The second Act is that No person shall be cited out of tâ—e diocesse where he dwelleth except in certain cases Which though it may seem to reflect upon the Court of Rome yet I do not find that it is concerned in it but the Arches Audience and other Archiepiscopall Courts within the Realm The third Act is meerly declarative of the law of the land as well the Common lawes as the Statute lawes and grounded wholy upon them as by the View of the Statute it self doth appeare So it casteth out no forraine power but what the lawes had cast out before The summe of it is this That all Causes Matrimoniall Testamentary or about Tithes c. shall be heard and finally judged in England by the proper Iudges Ecclesiasticall and Civill respectively and not elswhere notwithstanding any forrein Inhibitions Appeales Sentences citations suppensions or Excommunications And that if any English Subject procure a Processe Inhibition Appeale c. From or to the Court of Rome or execute them to the hinderance of any processe here he shall incurre the Penalties ordained by the Statute of provision or premunire made in the sixteenth yeare of King Richard the second against such as make provision to the See of Rome This law was eâ—larged afterwards to all causes of Ecclesiasticall cognisance and all appeales to Rome forbidden The fourth Act is an Act for punishing of Heresy Wherein there are three clauses that concern the Bishop of Rome The First is this And that there be many Heresies and paines and punishments for Heresies Declared and ordained in and by the Canonicall Sanctions and by the Lawes and Ordinations made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome and by their Authorities for holding doing preaching of things contrary to the said Canonicall Sanctions Lawes and Ordinances which be but humane being meer repugnant and contrarious to the royall Prerogative Regall Iurisdiction Lawes Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm The second Clause is that No License be obtained of the Bishop of Rome to Preach in any part of this Realm or to doe any thing contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm or the Kings Prerogative Royall The third Clause followeth That the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome not confirmed by Holy Scriptures were never commonly attested to be any Law of God or man within this Realme And that it should not be deemed Heresy to speak or doe contrary to the pretended power or Authority of the Bishop of Rome made or given by Humane Lawes and not by Scriptures nor to speake or Act contrary to the Lawes of the Bishop of Rome being contrary to the Lawes of this Realm The Fifth Act is an Act concerning the Submission of the Clergy to the Kings Majesty The scope of it is this that the Clergy shall not assemble in Convocation nor make or proniulge any new Canons without the Kings License Hitherto there is nothing new in point of Law Then that the King should have
Clarendon by the Popes Mandate they had interdicted the Lands of Earl Hugh and had published an Excommunication without the Kings License which the Pope had given out against him All these Lawes continued still in force and were never repealed in England neither before Henry the eighth began the reformation nor since by Queen Mary but have ever continued iu full force untill this day Lastly for Legates and Legantine courts there could be no Appeale in Eugland to any Legate or Nuncio without the Kings leave but all Appeales must be from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King as we see expresly by the statute of Assise of Clarendon formerly cited The Kings of England did ever deem it to be an unquestionable right of the Crown as Eadmerus testifieth to suffer none to excercise the Office of a Legate in England if the King him self did not Desire it of the Pope upon some great quarrell that could not be so well Determined by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops Which Privilege was consented unto by Pope Calixius By the Lawes of England if a Legate was admitted of Courtesy he was to take his Oath to doe nothing Derogatory to the King and his Crown Henry the sixth by the counsaile of Humphry Duke of Gloster the Protector protested against Pope Martin and his Legate that they would not admit him contrary to the Lawes and Libertyes of the Realm and dissented from whatsoever he did And when the Pope had recalled Cardinall Pooles Commission of Legate for England and was sending another Legate into England Queen Mary being very tender of her Kinsmans Honour for all her good affection to Rome was yet mindfull of this point of old English Law to cause all the Seaports to be stopped and all Letters Briefs and Bulls from Rome to be intercepted and brought to her Shee knew this was an old English not a new protestant Privilege Neither would she ever admit the new Legate to appeare as Legate in her presence Now let us see how these old English Customes doe agree with the French Liberties The Pope cannot send a Legate a latere into France with power to Reform Iudge Collate dispense except it be upon the desire or with the Approbation of the most Christian King Neither can the Legate execute his Charge untill he hath promised the King under his Oath upon his holy Orders to make no longer use of the Legantine power in the Kings Dominions then it pleaseth him That he shall attempt nothing Contrary to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church And it is lawful to Appeale from the Pope to a future Councell Another Liberty is The Commissions and Bulls of Popes are to be viewed by the Court of Parliament and registred and published with such Cautiōs as that Court shall Iudge expedient A third Liberty is Papall Bulls Sentences Excommunications and the like are not to be executed in France without the Kings command or Permission Lastly neither the King nor his Realm nor his Officers can be Excommunicated nor Interdicted by the Pope And as England and France so all the seventeen Provinces did enjoy the same Privileges as appeareth by the Placaet of the Councell of Brabant dated at Bruxelles May 12 An. 1653. Wherein they declare that it was notoriously true that the subjects of those Provinces of what State or Condition soever that is the Clergy as well as the Laity cannot be cited or convented out of the Land no not before the Court of Rome it self And that the Censures Excommunications c of that Court might not be published or put in execution without the Kings Approbation It seemeth that if the Pope had any judiciary power of old he must seek it nearer Home People had no mind to goe over the Alpes to seek for Justice And that Ordinance of Sainct Cyprian had place every where among our Ancestours Seing it is decreed by all and it is equall and just that every mans cause be heard there where the Crime was committed and a Portion of the Flock is assigned to every Pastor which he may rule and govern and must render an account of his Actions to the Lord It behoveth those whom wee are over not to run up and down nor to knock Bishops who agree well one◠against another by their Cunning and deceitfull Rashnesse but to plead their Cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Vnlesse the Authority of the African Bishops who have Iudged them already seem lesse to a few desperate and lost persons c. To say S. Cyprian meant not to condemne appeales but onely the bringing Causes out of Africk to Rome in the first Instance is a shift as desperate as that of those Fugitives For St. Cyprian telleth us plainly that the cause was already Iudged and sentence given in Africk The first Instance was past and this Canon was made against Appeales out of Africa to Rome Sect I. Cap VIII So from his Iudiciary power I come to Papal dispensations the last of the grosser Vsurpations of the Bishops of Rome Where I have a large Field offered me to expatiate in if I held it so pertinēt to the present Controversy The Pharisees did never dilate their Philacteries so much as the Roman Courtiers did their dispensative power The Pope dispenseth with Oathes with Vowes with Lawes he looseth from Sinnes from Censures from Punishments Is not this a strange Key which can unlock both sinnes and censures and Punishments and Lawes and Oaths and Vowes where there are so many and so different wards It is two to one that it proveth not a right Key but a Picklock Their doctrin of Dispensations was foule enough especially in such cases as concern the Law of God or Nature as Oaths Vowes Leagues Marriages Allegiance For either they make the dispensation to be onely Declarative and then the Purchaser is meerly Cheated who payes his money for nothing Or else they make all Contracts Leagues promises to be but Conditionall If the Pope approve them which destroyeth all mutuall trust and humane Society Or thirdly they make the Popes Dispensations to be a taking away of the matter of the Vow or Oath that is the Promise as if the Papall power could recall that which is past or make that to be undone to day which was done yesterday or that not to be promised which was promised Or lastly they doe dispense with the Law of God and Nature as they doe indeed what soever they pretend to the Contrary or all this kind of dispensations signify nothing But the Practise of Dispensations was much more foule Witnesse their Penitentiary Taxe wherein a man might see the Price of his Sin before hand Their common Nundination of Pardons Their absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance Their loosing of Princes from their solemne Leagues of Married people from the Bonds of
Governed The Supreme Governesse in respect of its Representative a Generall Councell to which all Ecclesiasticall Officers higher or lower whether Constituted by Christ or substituted by the Church doe owe an account And the Governed in respect of that Vniversality of Christians which he mentioneth And this sounds much more sweetly in Christian eares then to make either the Pope the Maister or the Church of Rome the Mistresse of the Church He brought an Argument for the Succession of the Roman Bishop drawn from the Vicissitude of Humane affairs I retoâ—ted it upon himselfe that Rome itself was as much subject to this Vicissitude as any other place it may be destroyed with an Earthquake He saith It must be an unheard of Earthquake which can swallow up the whole Diocesse if the City be destroyed yet the Clergy of the Roman Diocesse can elect to themselves a new Bishop But this new elected Bishop shall be no more the Bishop of Rome after it is destroyed But that which concerneth him and the cause more is he proposeth my Objection by halfes I said it might be destroyed by warres also that is both City and Diocesse and become a place for Satyrs to Dance in and Owles to scrâ—ech in As great Cityes as Rome have run that Fortune In that case what will become of his Election I added it may become Hereticall or Mahumetan He answereth True so may the whole Church if it had pleased God so to Order causes No by his leave not so Christ hath promised that his Vniversall Church shall never faile but he hath not promised that Rome shall never faile I said the Church never disposeth so of her Offices as not to be able to change her Mesnagery according to the Vicissitude of Humane affaires He opposeth that I granted in the foregoing Page that Christ himself and not the Church instituted this Prineipality or Primacy and bids me shew that the Church hath Authority to change Christs Institution I did not grant it but suppose it but whether granted or supposed it is not materiall to the purpose The Church hath no power to change Christs Institution in Essentialls but all Ecclesiasticall Officers whatsoever are her Officers and she hath power to dispose of them and govern them and to alter what is not Essentiall I know there are other meaus between Tyranny and Anarchy besides Aristocracy even all lawfull Formes of Government as Monarchy and Democracy but in the Government of the Catholick Church Monarchy and Democracy had no place unlesse it were in respect of Particular Diocesses or Provinces and therefore to have named Monarchy here had been superfluous and impertinent But the Government of the Primitive Church in the Apostles and their Successours was ever Aristocraticall first by an equall Participation of power in the Apostles and then by a Subordination of Bishops in their Successours and this as well out of Generall Councells as in them as well before there were Generall Councells as after It is not my want of Memory but his want of Iudgement to pursue such shadowes as these and nickname them Contradictions He askes how should a Primate of Order who hath no power to Act at all in order to the Vniversall Church have more power to prevent her good or procure her harme then one who hath Soveraignty of power This is his perpetuall Practise to dispute from that which is not granted St. Peter was a Primate of Order aâ—ong the Apostles and no more yet he had power to act singly as an Apostle and as a Primate among the Apostles he had power also to Act jointly with the Aposâ—olicall College so have all other Primates of â—rder Whatsoever Mr. Serjeant thiâ—kes Our Saviâ—uâ— thought this Form of Goveâ—ment as conducible to the good of his Church both to procure her Good and to prevent her harm as an absolute Soveraignty I doe not feast the Reader with Contradictions Nothing is more true then my Assertion but he abuseth his Reader with notorious Fictions If the Papacy be the Bridle in the mouth of the Church then without peradventure the Pope is the Rider though the Papacy be not I said enough before to let him see the unfitnesse of his lâ—dicrâ—us Allegory and taxed him for it if he delight in it let him pursue it Nos hac a Scabie tenemus ungues How the Church doth both govern and is governed I have shewed him formerly In his answer he fell into a large Encomiuâ— of the Papacy demanding among other things What Christian Prince can chuse but be glad to have an Arbitrator so prudent so pâ—â—â—s so distinteressed as a Good Pope should be and if this Authority were duely Governed I told him that to looke upon men as they should be was to write dreaming He rejoineth that he lookes not upon men at all in this place but speakes of the Office it self And challengeth me what say you to the Office it self I answer first he saith not truely for he did looke at men in this place otherwise why did he adde this Condition as a good Pope should be And this other If this Authority were duely governed Certainly he who lookes upon an Arbitrator so prudent so pious so Disinteressed as a good Pope should be looketh something upon men And so in truth he ought to doe but his fault is that he lookes upon them as they should be and not as they commonly are which is the same fault I taxe him with to write Dreaming not waking Now to his Question What say you to the Office it self I say first that though he hath stated it p. 624 Yet he hath not stated it at all neither I feare dare he state it nor is willing to state it He telleth us indeed sometimes of the Substance of the Papacy but wherein the Substance of the Papacy consists except some Generall unsignificant Expressions of an Headship or Chief Governourship or First Movership about which we have no Controversy with them and which are equally appliable to a Primacy of Order and a Soveraignty of Power he saith nothing Whether the Pope be an absolute Monarch or a duke of Venice inferiour to the whole Senate whether he have a Coactive power in the Exteriour Court throughout all other Princes dominions without their leaves Whether he have the right to conferre Bishopricks Convocate Synods Impose Pensions For bid Oaths of Allegiance and require new Oaths of Allegiance to himself Set up Legantine Courts Receive Appeales make Lawes dispense with Lawes at his pleasure he saith nothing yet these are the onely Controversies we have with them to aske what we say to the Popes Authority without stating of it without stinting of it is an unreasonable demand I say secondly that he ought to explain himself by what right he doth challenge this Authority Divine or Humane or onely out of Prudentiall reasons If he challenge it by divine right or Humane right he ought to prove the right according to the just extent of
by all Catholicks c. For which you are excommunicated It is true they did not deny us Communion for holding this Opinion nor presse upon us an unconscientious Approbation of this Opinion directly for any thing that I know but neverthelesse they have by their power subjected a Generall Councell to the Pope they have procured it to be defined though not expresly in the Councell of Florence and to be expresly defined in the Councell of Lateran under Leo the tenth Hence it is that all the Councells since the Councells of Constance and Basile and the two Pisan Councells have wanted Conciliary Freedome and been altogether at the Disposition of the Popes to prorogue them to tranfferre them to stin◠them what matters they might handle and what not to deferre their Determinations untill he had formed or created a party or wrought some of the dissenting Bishops to his will to ratify or reject their decrees at his pleasure When or where was it ever heard before that there was twice as many Bishops of one Nation in a Generall Councell as of all other Nations in the world Hence was that complaint of the Fathers in the Councell of Trent that the Synode was guided by the Holy Ghost sent from Rome in a Male. If it had not been for this thing but the Fathers had been permitted freely to have proceeded in the Councell of Trent in the Resolution of that noble Question concerning the Residence and divine Right of Bishops in all probability this great rent had been made up and he and I had not needed to have disputed this Question at this Day Thus by this Opinion and by their Sinister Practises to establish it they are causally and formally Schismaticall and have been both the procreating and conserving Cause of this great Schisme the procreating cause by altering the Hierarchy and Disordering the Members which doth necessarily produce a disturbance and Schisme in the Body and the conserving cause by destroying the Freedome of Councells which are the proper Remedies of Schisme Whether these later Councells were Occumenicall or Occidentall or neither is not the point in debate They are those which they call Generall They were as Generall as they would permit them to be and to conclude it was their fault that they were not more Generall So though this were not the very cause alleged by them why they did excommunicate us yet it was one of the Causes of the Schisme and consequently of our Excommunication I leave every man free to Iudge for himself but for mine own part I am so great a Lover of the peace of Christendome that I should not oppose the Bishop of Romes headship of Order if he would be content with it and that is as much as many whom he stileth his own Sons do yield him But though that be sufficient for the Catholick Church it is not sufficient for the Court of Rome to fill their Coffers they love not such a Dry Papacy I dispute onely whether the Popes right be Divine or humane or mixed as Gerson thought either score may justly challenge Duty But I am very positive that whatsoever the Bishop of Rome hath more then this Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity he had it by humane right and by humane right he may lose it Neither doe I goe about to deprive the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whatsoever of any Iurisdictiō purely spirituall which was left them as a Legacy by Christ or by his Apostles but I deny that Apparitors or Pursivants or Prisons are of Christs Institution I deny that Christ or his Apostles did ever either exercise themselves or grant to others Authority to exercise Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes within their Dominions and without their leaves If Subjects submit Volenti non fit injuria but then it is not Coactive If Princes give leave as they have done in all Ages so far as they judged it expedient for the publick good then it is very lawfull but without the Subjects submission or the Princes leave there may be indeed a spirituall kind of Coactiō in the interiour Court of Conscience but no true coactiō in the exteriour Court of the Church I see he understandeth not the sense of that Logicall restriction The Papacy as it is such which signifieth not the Papacy as it ought to be or so far as all Roman Catholicks doe agree about it but the Papacy as it is Qualified in present or as it is owned or obtruded or endeavoured to be obtruded by the Pope and Court of Rome So the Papacy as it is such is opposed or contradistinguished to the Ancient Papacy in the purer and more Primitive times which was not guilty of those Vsurpations which the modern Popes have introduced Thus still my Contradiction doth end in his misunderstanding My fourth ād last charge of Schisme upō the Pope and Court of Rome was thus They who take away the Line of Apostolicall Successiō throughout the world except in the See of Rome who make all Episcopall Iurisdiction to flow from the Pope of Rome and to be founded in his Lawes to be imparted to other Bishops as the Popes Vicars and Coadjutors assumed by them into part of their Charge are Schismaticks But the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners do thus Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome and their mainteiners are Schismaticks To this Argument he vouchsafeth no answer at all in due Forme as it ought to be and I have no reason to insist long upon his Voluntary Iargon All the Answer which he intimateth is this that this Tenet is not Generall among them but points of Faith are held generally Here is an answerlesse Answer without confessing or denying either Proposition such an Answer doth not become one who maketh himself so great a Master in the Art of disputing I charge not their whole Church but the Pope and Court of Rome and all their Abetters and Mainteiners with the Crime of Schisme I conclude no more then I assume He answers that the whole Church dot not hold these Tenets What is that to the purpose As if a Particular person as the Pope or a Particular Society as the Court of Rome or the greater part of a Church as all their Abetters and mainteiners could not be Schismaticks except the whole Church be Schismaticall which is most absurd I am free to charge whom I will if he will not answer for them he may be silent but if he undertake to be their Advocate let him defend them in due Forme as he ought and not tell us that he is not concerned as a Controvertist to defend any thing but Points of Faith Which is neither better nor worse in plain English then to run away from the Question All our Controversy is whether such and such pretended Privileges be Papall Rights or Papall Vsurpations If he dare not maintein them to be just rights either by divine Law
after Eleuen hundred years were eâ—â—luxed a strange time to set up a divine right Gregory the seventh otherwise called Pope Hildebrand and after him Pope Calixtus did condemne all Investitures taken from a Lay hand aud prohibit the Arch Bishops to cousecrate any persons so invested Praesens audivi in Romano Concilio prohiberi saith Anselm I heard it with mine own eares prohibited in the Roman Court But what were their reasons I believe not overrigorous Demonstrations The first was frequent suspicion of Simony An unheard of piece of Iustice to take away an hereditary right for suspicion of a personall fault The second and third reasons are contained in the letter of Adrian the fourth to Frederick the first Apud Goldast Ab his qui Dii sunt filii excelsi omnes homagium requiâ—is Fidelitatem exigis manus eorum sacratas manibus tuis innectis Thou requirest homage of those who are Gods and all the Children of the most High thou exactest an Oath of Fidelity and knittest their sacred hands with in thy hands A strange presumtion in a Soveraign Prince if you marke it well to hold his subjects hands within his Hands whilest he was swearing his Allegiance But the maine exception was the Homage or Oath of Fidelity it self And was it not high time thinke you to except against their swearing of Fidelity to their Native Prince whom the Bishops of Rome intended to exempt from his Iurisdiction aud to make them turn Subjects to themselves as they did in a great part effect it very shortly after Then was the time where of Platina speaks that there was great Consultation about the Homage and Fealty and Oaths of Bishops which in former times were sworn to lay men Were they so indeed Here is an ingenuous Confession of the Popes own Library Keeper Indeed at the first whilest they were robbing the King of the Iewells of his Crown they preached up nothing but free Elections but after they had onte seised their prey they changed their once forthwith to Dei Apostolicae Sedis Graria By the Grace of God and the Apostolique See Or ex plenitudine Ecclefiasticae potestatis out of the Fulnesse of our Ecclesiasticall power And when this Bell had rung out a while Egypt never a bounded more with Caterpillars then our Native Country did with Provisions and reservations and Pensions with all theÌ„hellish arts of Sublimated Simony Then our best dignityes and Benefices were filled with Strangers who could not speak an English word nor did ever tread upon English ground dayly more and more untill these well chosen Pastors who knew how to sheare their Flocks though they did not know how to feed them received yearly out of the Kingdome more theu the revenues of the crown He were very simple who should thinke the Court of Rome did not lick their own Fingers There remaineth but one thing to be done to stick the Guilt of this intolerable Vsurpation undeniably upon the See of Rome that is to sâ—ew that the Investiture of Bishops was the undoubted right of the Crown This is as cleare as the Sun both in our most Authentick Historiographers and records if I had the meanes to producetheÌ„ and also in our ancient Lawes published long since to the world in print and these not enactive of new law but declarative of the fundamentall law of the land First for our Histories Gervasius Dorobernensis relateth that Lanfrank desired of William the conquerer the Patronage of the Abby of S. Austin but the King answered Se velle omnes baculos pastorales in manu tenere That he would keep all the Crosier staffes that is the Investitures in his own hand The same is testified Anselm himself by one whose Authority cannot be doubted of He Anselm after the manner and Example of his Predecessor was inducted according to the Custome of the Land and did Homage to the King homo Regis factus est as Lanfranke his Predecessor in the Archbishoprick of Canterbury in his time had done And the manner of his Investiture is related how the Bishops pulled him and haled him as it were by violence to the Kings bedside William Rufus where he lay sick and helped to thrust the Crosier staffe by force into his hand Yet all that time though Anselm had many other Pretenses he had no exception against Investiture by a Lay hand but shortly after it grew to such an height and Anselm was the chief Stickler in it that William the Agent of King Henry the First protested openly to Pope Paschall Whatsoever is said on this side or on that I would have all men here present to know that my Lord the King of England will not suffer the losse of his Investitures for the losse of his Kingdome To whom Pope Paschall answered as resolutely but not so justly Know thou I speake it before God that Paschall the Pope will not suffer him to keep them without punishment no not for the redemtion of his head Neither was this the case of Anselm or Lanfranke alone but the commoÌ„ case of all Bishops in those dayes Hear the confession of the same author To conclude the very cause of the difference between the King and Anselm seemed a new thing or innovation to this our age and unheard of to the English from the time that the Normans began to Reign that I say not sooner For from the time that William the Norman conquered that Land no Bishop or Abbat was made before Anselm who did not first doe Homage to the King and from his hand by the gift of a Crosier staffe receive the investiture to his Bishoprick or Abbacy except two Bishops of Rochester who were Surrogates to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and inducted by him by the Kings Concession Yea by his Favour so did Anselm himself Though he sought afterwards to wave it And though he be loath to speak out That I say not sooner Yet he might have said sooner and others doe say sooner as Ingulph the Abbat of Crowland in the time of the Conquerer For many yeares past there hath been no free Election of Prelates but the Kings Court did conferre all dignities according to their pleasure by a Ring and by a Crosier And this Custome had held not onely for Many yeares but for many Ages king Edgar did grant to the monkes of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbat for ever but he reserved to him self and to his Heirs the power to invest the Brother elected by the tradition of the Pastorall staffe Thus for our histories now for our Lawes where of I shall need to cite but three The First is the Statute or Assise or Memoriall of Clarendon containing part of the ancient Liberties and Customes of the Realme made in the Generall assembly of the Kingdome King Bishops Peers to which they gave both their oathes assertory for the truth of it and Promissory for performance of it The
had no coactive power to compell any man against his Will The Vttermost they could doe was to separate him from their Communion and to leave him to the Comming or Iudgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha The true Controversy then is this Whether the Bishop of Rome by his Legates have Coactive power in the exteriour Court to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England when he will where he will whom he will without their Consents and without the leave of the Soveraign Prince or King of England The Case being thus stated determineth it self Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England Wee see by often experience that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Councell in Italy within the Dominions of another Soveraign Prince or Republick although they be of his own Communion he must First aske leave and obtein leave before he can tell how to doe it Or how should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King Thus for point of right Now for matter of Fact First I doe utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Synod in the Brittish Island during the First eleven hundred yeares Or preside in any by his Legates Or confirm them by his Authority If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary he may cry guilty to the Vsurpation where of he is accused and hold his peace forever Secondly I doe confesse that after eleven hundred yeares The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civill combustions and prostituting the reputation of the Apostolicall See to their temporall ends did by the leave of our Kings not otherwise sometimes call Synods in England and preside in them The first Synod held in England by any of the Popes Legats was at London in the yeare 1125. by Ioannes Cremensis Which moved England into no smal indignation to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdome of England A Priest sitting president upon an high throne above Arch Bishops Bishops bats c. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference betwen affirmative and negative Presidents All which this proveth is that the King did give leave or connive at that time But it doth not prove it cannot prove a right to doe the same at other times when the King contradicteth it Further wee ought to take notice that there is a greate deale of difference between an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation Although in truth our Convocations be Synods So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them Convocari facias All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Synod but all the whole Clergy of the Kingdome were present at a Convocation either in their Persons or by their Proctors sufficiently authorised Secondly the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papall Synod as they had to the Acts of a royall Convocation sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates Lastly to drive the naile home and to demonstrate clearly the Grossenesse of this Papall usurpation it remaineth onely to shew that by the Ancient Lawes of England the calling of Convocations or Synods belonged properly to the King not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates And first by reason By the Lawes of England more ancient then the Popes intrusion no Roman Legat could enter into the Kingdome withont the Kings leave nor continue in it longer then he had his License as wee shall see hereafter and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor doe any Synodicall Act without the Kings leave Secondly by Records of the English Convocation itself that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are alwayes have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532. Thirdly by the Form of the Writt which hath ever been the same in all succeding Ages constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces The very Form speakes it English sufficiently For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church and the peace tranquility publik good and defence of our Kingdome and Subjects Wee command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe â—o us that you cause to be convocated with convenient speed in due manner all and singular Bishops of your Province Deanes and Priors of Cathedrall Churches c. And the whole Clergy of your diocesse and Province to meet before you c. Another Writ did alwayes issue from the King for the dissolution Wee command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation this very day in due manner without any delay c. Lastly by the concurring Testimonyes of all our Historiographers That all the space of time of eleven hundred yeares wherein the Popes did neither call Councells nor Preside in them nor Confirm them and after unto the very Reformation Our Kings did both call Councells and Preside in them and Confirm them and own their Lawes as I have shewed him by the Lawes of Ercombert Ina Withred Alfred Edwerd Athelstan Edmund Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor in my Vindication And particularly that Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Presided in a Councell in the Presence of Iohn the Popes Legate That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decreâ—um Regis The Kings decree That King Withred called a Councell at Becancelde and Presided in it and that the decrees of the Councell issued in his name and by his Authority Firmiter decernimus c. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon All this he pretendeth to have answered but it is with deep silence If he desire more Presidents and more witnesses he may have a cloud of Authors upon holding up his Finger to prove undeniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them and confirm their Acts with in his own Dominions but followed the steps of his Roâ—al Predecessors in all Ages from the first planting of religion untill his own dayes And not onely of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours The President of Charles the great is very conspicuous To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf In the French Synod I Charlemain Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Servants of God and my Princes have congregated the Bishops wich are in my Kingdome with the Priests to a Synod for the feare of Christ to Counsaile me how the Law of God and Ecclesiasticall Religion may be recovered which in the Dayes of forepassed Princes is dissipated and fallen
which ought to have been done in a Legall Appeale But the successe was so contrary to the Popes Interest and the Resolution of the King Church and Kingdome of England so unanimous That they could not assent to the Popes Legation because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Councell of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter that England was never troubled with any more appeales to Rome untill after the Conquest Neither Durst the Pope send any Bulls or Mandates then but a plain Letter The next Appellant was Anselm a Stranger who knew not the liberties of England in the Dayes of Henry the first as succeslesse as Wilfrid had bene Will you trust the Testimony of a King And I know not why a King should not be trusted for the Customes of his own Kingdome Hear King Henry the First the Sonne of the Conquerour It is a Custome of my Kingdome instituted by my Father instituted indeed but not first instituted for it was an old Saxon Custome that no Pope be appealed to without the License of the King Another Law of the same King was By all meanes wee discharge forrain Iudgements If you will not trust the King trust the whole Kingdome upon their Oaths in the Dayes of Henry his Grandchild The First English Custom recited in the Assise of Clarendon is this That all Appeales in England must proceed regularly froÌ„ the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch Bishop and if the Arch Bishop failed to doe Iustice the last coÌ„plaint must be to the King to give order for redresse If wee will not trust the King and Kingdome Yet lâ—t us trust the Pope him self thus Paschal the secoÌ„d writeth to our Henry the first The Popes Nuncioes and Letters doe find no reception within thy Iurisdiction There are no Complaints from those parts no Appeales are destined to the Apostolick See The Abbat of Thorney found this true by experience who lay long in prison notwithstanding his Appeale to Rome The Case is so plaine that I shall not cite one Authority more in it but onely one of our Statute Lawes made not onely by the Assent as is usnall but upon the prayer and grievous and clamorous Complaints of the Peers and Commons That because People are Drawn out of the Realm to answer things the Cognisance whereof belongeth to the Kings Courts and the Iudgements of the Kings Courts are impeached in another Court the Court of Rome to the disinheriting of the king and his Crown and the undoing â—and destruction of the Common Law of the Land Therefore it is ordeined that whosoever shall draw a man out of the Realm in Plea if he doe not appeare upon Summons and conform to the sentence of the kings Court he shall forfeit Lands and Goods be outlawed and imprisoned Against such Fortifications grounded upon Prescription and Imperiall Lawes the Canon of the Councell of Sardica will make no great Battery Take the Councell of Sardica at the best waving all exceptions yet certainly it was no generall Councell If it were it had been one of the four first If it had been a generall Councell it self three succeeding Popes were much to blame to Father the Canons of it upon the first Generall Councell of Nice The Canons of the Councell of Sardica did not bind the Africans of old much lesse bind us now Secondly the Canon of Sardica doth onely give way to Appeales to Rome in cases between two Bishops but the Court of Rome admitteth Appeales from inferiour Clergy men from Lay men from all sorts of men in all sorts of Causes that are of Ecclesiasticall Cognisance Thirdly the Canon of Sardica is a meer permission no precept what may be done in discretion not what ought to be done of necessity it was proposed with a Si vobis placet If it please you and the ground of it is a Complement Let us honour the Memory of S. Peter Fourthly There is one great Circumstance in our Case which varieth it quite from that proposed by Osius to the Sardican Fathers that is that our King and the Lawes of the Realm do forbid Appeales to Rome If there had been such an Imperiall Law then doe wee thinke that the Fathers of Sardica would have been so disloyall or so simple to thinke to abrogate the Imperiall Lawes by their Canons which are no Lawes but by the Emperours Confirmation No the Fathers of that Age did know their duty too well to their Emperour and if they could have foreseen what avaricious practises and what grosse Oppressions would have sprung in time from this little seed of their Indulgence they would have abhominated them Lastly supposing the Sardican Councell had been of more Authority and the Canon thereof of more Extent then it was and more peremptory and that there had been no such intervening impediment why English Subjects could not make use of that Remedy yet the Councell of Sardica can give but humane right And a contrary Prescription for a thousand years is a sufficient Enfranchisement from all pretence of humane right The second branch of this Vsurpation is as cleare as the former concerning Papall Bulls and Excommunications That by our ancient Lawes they cannot be executed in England without the Kings Leave In the Assise of Clarendon this is found to be one of the ancient Customes of England That none of the Kings Servants or Tenents that held of him in Capite might be excommunicated or their Lands interdicted before the King was made acquainted There was a severe Lawe made in the Reign of the same King If any man be found bringing in the Popes Letter or Mandate Let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitour to the King and Kingdome It seemeth that the first and second Henryes were no more propitious to Rome then Henry the eighth Take one Statute more it was enacted in full Parliament by Richard the secoÌ„d that if any did procure or pursue any such Processesâ—or excommunications in the Court of Rome as are there meÌ„tioned that is concerning presentatioÌ„s to benefices or dignities Ecclesiasticall and they who bring them into the realm or receive them or execute them shall be put out of the Kings protection their Lands Goods and Chattells be confiscated to the King and their Bodies attached They had the same respect for the Popes Bulls as often as they did not like them in Henry the fourths time as wee see by the Statute made against those who brought or prosecuted the Popes Bulls granted in favour of the Cystercians By the Law of England if any man denounced the Popes Excommunication without the assent of the King he forfeited al his Goods And it is recorded in particular how the Kings writ issued out against the Bishops of London and Norwich as being at the Kings Mercy because contrary to the Statute of
Matrimony of Cloysterers from their Vowes of Celibate of all sorts of persons from all Obligations Civill or sacred And whereas no Dispensation ought to be granted without just cause now there is no cause at all inquired after in the Court of Rome but onely the Price This is that which the nine choise Cardinalls laid so close to the conscience of Paul the third How Sacred and Venerable the Authority of the Lawes ought to be how unlawfull and pernicious it is to reape any gaine from the exercise of the Keys They inveigh sadly throughout against dispeÌ„satioÌ„s and among other things that Simoniacall persons were not affraid at Rome first to commit Simony and presently to goe buy an AbsolutioÌ„ and so reteine their Benefice Bina Venena juvant Two grosse Simonies make a title at Rome Thankes to the Popes dispensations But I must contract my discourse to those Dispensations which are intended in the Lawes of Henry the eight that is the power to dispense with English Lawes in the Exteriour Court Let him bindor loose inwardly whom he will whether his Key erre or not we are not concerned Secondly as he is a Prince in his own Territories he that hath power to bind hath power to loose He that hath power to make Lawes hath power to dispense with his own Lawes Lawes are made of Common Events Those benigne Circumstances which happen rarely are left to the dispensative Grace of the Prince Thirdly as he is a Bishop whatsoever dispensative power the ancient Ecclesiasticall Canons or Edicts of Christian Emperours give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories which were subject to his Iurisdiction by Humane right we do not envy him So he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities freed from his encroachments and Vsurpations The Chief ground of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall Canon was Let the Old Customes prevaile A Possession or Prescription of eleven hâ—ndred yeares is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against humane Right and much more against a new pretense of divine right For eleven hundred yeares our Kings and Bishops enjoyed the â—ole dispensative power with all English Lawes Civill and Ecclesiasticall In all which time he is not able to give one Instance of a Papall Dispensation in England nor any shadow of it when the Church was formed Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legislative power no Iudiciary power in the Exteriour Court by necessary consequence they could have no Dispensative power The first reservation of any Case in England to the Censure and absolution of the Pope is supposed to have been that of Albericus the Popes Legate in an English Synod in the yeare 1138. Neque quisquam ei praeter Romanum Pontificem nisi mortis urgente periculo modum paenitenttae finalis injungat Let no man injoyn him the manner of finall Pennance but the Bishop of Rome except in danger of death But long before this indeed from the beginning our own Bishops as the most proper Iudges who lived upon the place and see the nature of the Crime and the degree of the Delinquents Penitence or Impenitence did according to equity relaxe the rigour of Ecclesiasticall Canons as they did all over the Christian world before the Court of Rome had usurped this gainfull Monopoly of Dispensations In the Lawes of Alured alone and in the conjoint Lawes of Alured and Guâ—thrun we see how many sortes of Ecclesiasticall crimes were dispeÌ„sed withall by the sole authority of the King and Church of England and satisfaction made at home to the King and to the Church and to the Party grieved or the Poore without any manner of reference at all to the Court of Rome or to any forrein Dispensation The like we find in the the lawes of some other Saxon Kings There needed no other paenitentiary taxe Dunstan the Arch-Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count He made his Peace at Rome and obteined the Popes Commaund for his restitution to the bosome of the Church Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I see him paenitent But it is not Gods will that he should lie in his sinne free from Ecclesiasticall discipline to insuâ—t over us God forbid that I should relinquish the law of Christ for the cause of any mortall man Roman dispensations were not in such Request in those daies The Church of England dispensed with those Nunnes who had fled to their Nunneries not for the love of religioÌ„ but had takeÌ„ the veile upon them meerly for feare of the French and this with the counseile of the King in the daies of Lanfranke and with Queene Maud the wyfe of HeÌ„ry the First in the like case in the daies of Anselme without any suite to Rome for a forreine dispensatioÌ„ There can be nothing more pernicious then where the sacred Name of Law is prostituted to avaricious ends Where Statutes or Canons are made like Pitfals or Traps to catch the Subjects by their purses where profitable faults are cherished for private Advantage by Mercinary Iudges as beggers doe their sores The Roman Rota doth acknowledge such ordinary avaricious Dispensations to be Odious things The Delected Cardinalls make them to be sacrilegious things an unlawfull selling of the power of the Keys Commonly they are called Vulnera Legum The woâ—nds of the Lawes And our Statutes of Provisers doe stile them expresly the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land The King the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the whole Common wealth of England complained of this abuse as a mighty Grievance Of the frequent comming among them of this infamous Messenger the Popes Non Obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customes Writings Grants Statutes Rights Privileges were not onely weakened but exinanited Sometimes these Dispensative Bulls came to legall Tryalls and were condemned By the Law of the Land the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visiter of the Vniversity of Oxford Boniface the eyght by his Bull dispeÌ„sed with this law and exeÌ„pted the Vniversity from the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop Whereupon there grew a Controversy and the Bull was decreed voide in Parliament by two succeding Kings as being obtained to the Prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome in favour of Lollards and hereticks and the probable Ruine of the said Vniversity How the Liberties of France and the Lawes and Customes of England doe accord in condemning this Vsurpation wee have seen formerly The power of the Pope is not absolute in France but limitâ—ed and restrained by the Canons of Ancient Councells If it be Limitted and restrained by Ancient Canons then it is not Paramount above the Canons then it is not dispensative to give Non Obstante's to the Canons And the Popes Legate may not execute his Commission before he have promised under his Oath upon his holy Orders that he will not attempt any thing in the exercise of his Legantine power to
our Church witnesse the Professions of King Iames witnesse all our Statutes themselves wherein all the parts of Papall power are enumerated which are taken away His Entroachments his Vsurpations his Oaths his Collations Provisions Pensions Tenths First fruits Reservations Palls Vnions Commendams Exemptions Dispensations of all kinds Confirmations Licenses Faculties Suspensions Appeales and God knoweth how many pecuniary Artifices more but of them all there is not one that concerneth Iurisdiction purely Spirituall or which is an essentiall right of the power of the Keys They are all Branches of the Externall Regiment of the Church the greater part of them usurped from the Crowne sundry of them from Bishops and some found out by the Popes themselves as the payment for Palls which was nothing in S. Gregoryes time but a free gift or liberality or bounty free from imposition and exaction Lastly consider the grounds of all our grievances expressed frequently in our Lawes and in other writers The disinheriting of the Prince and Peers The destruction and Anullation of the Lawes and the Prerogative Royall The Vexation of the King Liege people The impoverishing of the Subjects the draining the Kingdome of its treasure The decay of Hospitality The disservice of God And filling the Churches of England with Forreiners The excluding Temporall Kings and Princes out of their Dominions The Subjecting of the Realm to spoil and ravine grosse Simoniacall contracts Sacrilege Grievous and intolerable oppressioÌ„s and extortions Iurisdiction purely Spirituall doth neither disinherit the Prince nor the Peers nor destroy and anull the Lawes and Prerogative royall nor vex the Kings Liege people nor impoverish the Subject nor draine the Kingdome of its Treasures nor fill the Churches with Forreiners nor exclude Temporall Kings out of their Dominions nor subject the Realm to spoile and Ravine Authority purely spirituall is not guilty of the decay of Hospitality or disservice of Almighty God or Simony or Sacrilege or oppressions and extortions No No it is the externall regiment of the Church by new Roman Lawes and Mandates by new Roman Sentences and Iudgements by new Roman Pardons and dispensations by new Roman Synods and Oaths of Fidelity by new Roman Bishops and Clerkes It is your new Roman Tenths and First fruits and Provisions and Reservations and Pardons and Indulgences and the rest of those horrible mischiefs and damnable Customs that are apparently guilty of all these evills These Papall Innovations we have taken away indeed and deservedly having shewed the expresse time and place and person when and where and by whom every one of them was first introduced into England And we have restored to every Bird his own Feather To the King his Politicall Supremacy to the Peers their Patronages to the Bishops that Iurisdiction which was due to them either by Divine right or Humane right More then these Innovations we have taken nothing away that I know of Or rather it is not wee nor Henry the eighth who did take these Innovations away but our Ancesters by their Lawes three foure five hundred yeares old so soone as they began to sprout out or indeed before they were well formed as their Statutes yet extant doe evidence to the world But that filth which they swept out at the Fore doore the RomaÌ„ Emissaryes brought in again at the back doore All our part or share of this worke was to confirm what our ancesters had done I see no reason why I might not conclude my discourse upon this Subject Mutatis Mutandis with as much Confidence as Sanders did his visible Monarchy Quisquis jurabit per Viventem in aeternum c. Whosoever shall sweare by him that liveth for ever that the Church of England is not Schismaticall in respect of any Branches of Papall power which shee hath cast out at the Reformation he shall not forswear himself But Wagers and Oaths and Protestations are commonly the Arguments of such as have got the wrong end of the staffe I will shut up this long Discourse concerning Henry the eighths Reformation with a short Apostrophe to my Countrymen of the Roman Communion in England They have been taâ—ght that it is we who Apostate from the Faith of our Ancesters in this point of the Papacy that it is we who renounce the Vniversall and perpetual Tradition of the Christian world Whereas it is we who maintain ancient Apostolicall Tradition against their upstart Innovations whereas it is we who doe propugne the Cause of our Ancesters against the Court of Rome If our Ancesters were Catholick in this Cause we cannot be Schismaticall Let them take heed least whilst they fly oâ—t of a Panicall Feare from a supposed Schisme they doe not plunge themselves over head and eares into reall Schisme Let theÌ„ choose whether they will joine with their Ancesters in this cause or with the Court of Rome for with both they cannot joine If true English blood run in their veins they cannot be long deliberating about that which their Ancesters even all the Orders of the Kingdome voted unanimously That they would stand by their King and maintaine the rights of his Imperiall Crown against the Vsurpations of the Roman Court. I have represented clearly to you the true Controversy betweeÌ„ the Church and Kingdome of England and the Court of Rome concerning Papall power not as it is stated by private writers but in our English Lawes a glasse that cannot deceive us for so farre as to let us see the right Difference Let them quit these grosse Vsurpations Why should they be more ashamed to restore our lust rights then they were to plunder us of them Let them distinguish between Iurisdiction purely Spirituall and Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court which for the much greatest part of it is Politicall between the power of the Sword which be longeth to the Civill Soveraign and not to the Church further then he hath been graciously pleased to communicate it between that Obedience with procedeth from feare of wrath or from feare of Gods Revenger to execute wrath that is the Soveraign Prince and that Obedience which proceedeth meerly from conscience And then there is hope we may come to understand one another better It is true there are other Differences between us but this is the main Difference which giveth Denomination to the Parties And when they come to presse those Differences they may come to have such another account as they have now The wider the hole groweth in the middle of the Milstone Men see clearer through it Dies Diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicaâ— Scientiam The latter day is the Schollar of the former Sect. I. Cap. X. BY this time wee see that Mr. Serjeants great Dispatch will prove but a sleevelesse Errand and that his First Movership in the Church which he thought should have born down all before it is an unsignificant expression and altogether impertinent to the true Controversy between them and us Vnlesse as Dido did encompasse the
Surrejoinder together in this one short Section and give sentence readily who is the Mountebanke and Prevaricatour And first I challenge this great Champion of downright Cowardise as great as ever his Predecessour Thraso shewed in the Comedy in smothering and concealing palpably and shamefully his Adversaries reasons and declining the heat of the assault The maine subject of this Section was to shew that the ancient Kings of England did assume as much power in Ecclesiasticall affaires as Henry the eighth did that the Lawes of Henry the eighth were no new Lawes but onely renovations and Confirmations of the ancient Lawes of England which had never bene repealed or abrogated in the dayes of his Predecessors but were of force in England at that very time when he made his Lawes As the Statutes of Clarendon The Statute of Carlile The Articles of the Clergy The Statutes of Provisors and other old Lawes made in the time of Henry the first Henry the third Edward the first and Edward the third Richard the second Henry the Fourth all of them dead and gone many ages before Henry the eighth was born I shewed particularly that they suffered not the Pope to send for any English Subject out of England to Rome without leave nor to send any Legate into England without leave nor to receive any Appeale out of England without leave They made it death or at least the forfeiture of all a mans estate to bring any Papall Bulls or Excommunications into England They called Ecclesiasticall Councells made Ecclesiasticall Lawes punished Ecclesiasticall persons prohibited Ecclesiasticall Iudges received Ecclesiasticall Appeales made Ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated Ecclesiasticall Benifices rejected the Popes Lawes at their pleasure with a Nolumus wee will not have the Lawes of England to be Changed or gave Legislative Interpretations of them as they thought fit All this I have made evideÌ„t out of our ancient Lawes our Records our Historiographers in my Vindication in my Reply and in this Treatise And therefore I might well retort upon him his own Confident bragge that it is as cleare as the suns shining at noone day or that the same thing cannot be and not be at once that our Ancestours who did all this and much more then this did acknowledge no Monarchicall power of the Pope in the Exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination as Mr. Serjeant asserteth and that they did exercise as much power in the externall Regiment of the Church as Henry the eighth did and that Henry the eighths lawes were no new lawes devised by himself but were the lawes of these ancient Kings renewed by him or rather the Fundamentall Lawes and Liberties of England exposed by these ancient Kings as a Buckler against the Encroachments of the Roman Court. Now to all this cleare evidence what answer doth Mr. Serjeant make Iust Thraso-like when the matter comes to push of pike he sneaketh away post principia into the securest place he can find Speak the truth in earnest did Pyrrhus use to doe thus It is not possible to squeese one word of particular answer out of him onely in generall he saith I bring divers allegations wherein the Popes pretenses were not admitted c. And so proceedeth doe we professe the Pope can pretend to no more then his right c. Lawes and Records are but bare Allegations with him and prohibiting under pain of Death or Confiscation of Goods is no more but not admitted Speake out man and shame the devill whether did the Pope pretend more then is right or not whether were the ancieÌ„t English Lawes just Lawes or not This is certain his Pretensions and these Lawes cannot both be just The very substance of his Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court is prohibited by these Lawes his Soveraign power or Patronage of the English Church his Iudiciary Power his Legislative Power his dispensative Power all are lost if these Lawes stand All which Mr. Serjeant blancheth over with this generall expression such and such things Will the Court of Rome thank such and such an Advocate who forsakes them at a dead lift I trow no. And although I called upon him in my reply for a fuller and more satisfactory answer to these Lawes yet he giveth none in his Rejoinder but shuffleth up the matter in Generalls As for his particularities entrenching on or pretended to entrench on the Popes Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what Circumstances or cases they held in what not how the Letter of those Lawes are to be understood c. all which the Bishop Omitts though he expresse the bare words it belongs to Canon and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about them not me I hold my self to the Lists of the Question and the limits of a Controvertist Yes even as Thrasoheld himself to the Lists when he stole behind the second wards This is neither more nor lesse but flat running away and crying to the Canonists for help If the subject be improper for him why did he undertake it and not try first Quid ferre recusent Quid valeant humeri Why did he undertake it with so much youthfull Confidence and insulting scorn and petulance to accuse his adversary of impudence And as if impudence were too moderate a Character for him as a profest and sworn enemy of truth shame and honesty making him worse then a mad man or born foole And all this for pretending that Henry the eighth did no more against the Papacy then his Ancestour Kings had done before him and now when his Cavills are thrust down his own throat when the impudence is brought home to him and laid at his own doore when the very Lawes of his Ancestours are produced wherein they provided the same remedies for the Roman Court that Henry the eighth did he would with draw his own neck oâ—t of the Collar and leave the defence of his cause to the CanoÌ„ and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about the sense of these ancieÌ„t Lawes and whether they were law fully done or no and how far they extended and in what cases they hold in what not And this is all the answer which he vouchsafeth to these ancient English Lawes that is as much as to say he knoweth not what to answer or it doth not belong to him to answer and this he calleth holding himself to the Lists of the Question but all other men call it leaping out of the Lists of the Question and a shamefull deserting the cause he had uâ—dertaken to defend I ever acknowledged that Henry the eighth made sundry new Staâ—utes against the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome but I adde that these Statutes were declarative of old Law not Enactive of new Law This is as cleare as his noone day-light And I proved it by the Authority of two of our greatest Lawiers Fitz Herbert and my Lord Cooke persons sufficient to know the difference between a Statute declarative of old Law and a Statute Enactive of new
the Lawes and histories of his native Country If he had perused them diligently he might have observed how the Court of Rome and Crown of England were long upon their Gards watching one another and the one or the other gained or lost mutually according to the Vigour of their present Kings or Popes or according to the exigence of the times His seventh Objection that the like Lawes to ours in England were made in the Papacy it self but those could not be against the Popes Headship of the Church and his tenth Objection that then there never was a Papist Country in the world because equivaleÌ„t Lawes to ours were made in France Spaine Italy Sicily Gormany Poland c and his answer to my demand what law full Iurâ—sdiction could remaine to the Pope in England where such and such Lawes had force The same that remaines still to him in France Spaine Italy where the like lawes are in force in his last paragraph are a dish of unsavoury mushromes all sprung up from his own negligent mistake or wilfull Falsification let him chuse whether he will in confounding the Lawes of Mortmain with the other Lawes against the Popes Vsurpations Which I distinguished exactly both at the beginning of that discourse the Statute of Mortmain justified and at the Conclusion But to leave this Digression But besydes this grosse errour there want not other inconsequences and fallacies in his discourse as in his seventh Objection from the Popes particular Headship of his own Church to an Vniversall Headship over the Catholick Church and from an Headship of order to a Monarchicall Headship of power and in his tenth Objection from like lawes to the same Lawes from Lawes made to Lawes duely observed We had Lawes made against Non-conformists in England will he conclude thence that we have no Non-conformists in England the Argument would hold better the Contrary way Ex malis moribus bonae leges And in his last Paragraph from Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court to Iurisdiction purely Spirituall in the Court of Conscience and from Coactive Iurisdiction with the leave of the Prince to the same without Leave Wee see all Roman Catholick Countries doe stint the Popes Coactive Iurisdiction over their Subjects more or lesse according to their severall Liberties which they could not doe at all if he held it by Christs own Ordination His eighth Objection that upon this new Law made by Henry the eighth England stood at another distance then formerly from Rome is a Fallacy non causae pro causa when a false cause is assigned for a true cause Our just Lawes are not the right cause of our distance from Rome but the Popes unjust Censures and that Character which some of our Countrimen give of us But this distance is greater among the Populacy then between the Estates who do not much regard the Popes Censures either in making or observing of Leagues To his ninth Objection in his order and his last in my order that this Posiâ—â—on takes away the Question and makes all the Controvertists in England on both sides talke in the aire because it makes the Pope to have had no Authority there to be cast out I answer I wish it did but it doth not The Pope had Authority there and Authority usurped fit to be cast out notwithstanding our former good Lawes But yet I must confesse this Position doth much change the Question from spirituall Iurisdiction in the inner Court to Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court and makes him and many other such Controvertists talk in the aire who dispute onely about Headships and First Moverships when the true Controversy lieth in point of Interest and profit Sect. 4. That the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrein Iurisdiction for the first six hundred years and so ought to continue After I had shewed the Equality of the Apostles except onely a Priority of Order and that the Supremacy of power did not rest in any single Apostolicall College that Nationall Patriarchs were the highest Order constituted by the Apostles in the Church and how some Patriarchs came to be advanced above others with the true dignity or Preheminence of Apostolicall Churches the summe of all the rest of this Section might be reduced to a Syllogisme Those Churches which were exempted from all forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600 years cannot be subjected to any forrain Iurisdiction for the future against their own wills But all the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first six hundred yeares The Major Proposition was proved by me undeuiably out of the first Generall Councell of Ephesus to which Mr. Serjeant hath objected nothing Next I proved the Minor First by Prescription Affirmanti incumbit probatio The burthen of the proofe in Law resteth upon the Affirmer but they are not able to shew so much as one single act of Iurisdiction which ever any Bishop of Rome did in Brittaign for the first six hundred yeares Secondly I proved it from the Antiquity of the Britannick Church which was ancienter then the Roman it self and therefore could not be subject to the RomaÌ„ from the beginning Thirdly because the Britannick Churches sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman and therefore were not subject to the Roman Foâ—rthly because they had their Ordinations ordinarily at home which is an infallible sign of a free Church subject to no Forrein Iurisdiction Lastly because they renounced all Subjection to the Bishop of Rome I am forced to repeat thus much to let the Reader see the contexture of my discourse which Mr. Serjeant doth whatsoever he can to conceale or at least to confound and disjoint Out of this he picketh here and there what he pleaseth First he pleadeth that my Title is the Vindication of the Church of England but the Church of England can derive no title from the Britannick or Scottish Churches He never read or quite forgetteth the State of the QuestioÌ„ I will help his memory Let him read the Vindication by the Church of England we understand not the English Nation alone but the English dominion including the British and Scotish or Irish Christians So at unawares he hath yielded the Bishopricks of Chester Hereford Worcester for all these were Suffragans to Carleon Wales Cornwall Ireland Scotland with all the adjacent Ilands that is to say two third parts of the English Dominion Secondly he pleadeth that for this many hundred yeares they acknowledged the Popes Authority as well as the Church of England I answer that this will doe him no good nor satisfy the Generall Councell of Ephesus at all which hath decreed expresly in the case of the Cyprian Prelates and they Command the same to be observed in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors and if any doe occupy another Province that in this case let him restore it
were ordeined at home and therefore the Bishop of Rome could have no jurisdiction over them I said no more of Phocas but this that the Popes preteÌ„ses were more from Phocas then St. Peter He referreth me to his answer to Doctor Hammond And I refer him to Doctor Hammond for a reply as Impertinent to my present businesse When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad Meditation upon this Subject I confesse ingenuously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Popes Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had been a cause of my trouble proved a meanes of my â—inall Satisfaction For seing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spirituall Monarch The reasons of my Resolution I have set down and received no answer Yet it shall not seem irksome to me to repeat them as desiring nothing but the discovery of the truth First I argue thus The Soveraign Government and the Subordinate Government of the same person in the same Society or body Politick or Ecclesiastick is inconsistent But the Popes pretended Monarchy or Supremacy of power over the whole Church and his Patriarchall Dignity in the same Church are a Soveraign and Subordinate Government of the same person in the same body Ecclesiastick The reason of the Major is because Soveraign power is single of one person or Society but this subordinate power is conjoint of fellow Patriarchs Soveraign Power is Vniversall but this subordinate power is particular And therefore as a Quadrangle cannot be a Triangle nor a King a Sherif of a Shire or a President of a Province within his own Kingdome so neither can the same person be an Vniversall Monarch and a particular Patriarch Secondly the Spirituall Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is pretended to be by divine right his Patriarchall power is confessedly by humane right but a Spirituall Soveraignty by divine right and an inferiour dignity by humane right are inconsistent As it is absurd to say that God should make a man a Prince and after the people make him a Peer or God should give him a Greater Dignity and afterwards the people coÌ„ferre a lesse upon him Thirdly a Soveraignty above the CanoÌ„s besides the Canons against the Canons to make them to abrogate them to suspend them with a Non obstante to dispense with them at pleasure where the Canon gives no dispensative power and a Subjection to the Canons to be able to do nothing against them are inconsistent But suâ—h a Soveraign Power is above the Canons and such a Patriarchall power is subject to the Canons Therefore they are inconsistent All the answer he offereth to these two Instances the one that Bishop Vsher was at once Bishop of Armagh and as such the Bishop of Derries superiour I answer first he mistaketh much The Primacy of Ireland and the Archbishoprick of Armagh are not two diâ—â—inct dignities but one and the self same dignitie but the Monarchicall power of the Pope by divine right and his Patriarchall power by Humane right are two distinct dignities Secondly the Primate of Ireland is not indowed with Monarchicall power but all the difficulty here lieth in the Conjunction of Monarchicall power and Subordinate power His other Instance must a person leave of to be Master of his own Family because he is made King and his Authority extendeth over all England I answer first his Argument is a transition into another kind or an excursion from one kind of power to another from Politicall power in the Commonwealth to an Oeconomicall power in the Family Secondly it is one thing to make an inferiour person a King and another thing to make a King a Constable or to make Soveraignty and Subordination consist together When a King doth discharge the place of a Generall of an Army he acquireth no new dignity or power or place no man calleth him my lord Generall but he doth it as a King by his Kingly power to which no higher or larger power can be added but the Bishop of Rome did not doth not exercise Patriarchall power by virtue of his Monarchy by divine Ordination but by humane right first by Custome or prescription and then by authority of the Councell of Nice All the world seeth and acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome hath more power in his Bishoprick then he hath out of it in the rest of his Province aÌ„d more power in his Province then he hath out of it in his Patriarchate and more power in his own Patriarchate then he hath in anothers Patriarchate but if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination he should have the same power every where if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination then all Patriarchall power should flow from him as from the Originall Fountain of all Ecclesiaasticall honour But the Contrary is most apparent that all the Patriarchs even the Roman himself did owe their Patriarchall power to the Customes of the Church and Canons of the Fathers These are the reasons why I conceive Monarchicall Power and Patriarchall power to be inconsistent in one and the same persoÌ„ But the Pope was coÌ„fessedly a Patriarch therefore no Monarch The next thing which commeth to be observed is his ExceptioÌ„s to Dionothus the learned Abbat of Bangor his aÌ„swer to Austin professing Canonicall Obedience to the Archbishop of CaerleoÌ„ in his own name aÌ„d the name of the British Church and disclaiming all ObedieÌ„ce except of Brotherly love to the Bishop of Rome His first exception was the naming of the Bishop of Rome Pope without any Addition of Name or place contrary to the use of those times For aÌ„swer I committed him and his Friend Bellarmine together WheÌ„ the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome onely is to be understood as appeareth out of the Councell of Chalcedon the most blessed and Apostolicall man the Pope doth command us this without adding Leo or Rome or the City of Rome or any other thing He sleighteth Bellarmine and rebuketh me for folly to think that Catholick writers cannot disagree and answereth the Councell that thought the word Pope be alone without Addition Yet which is equivalent the Comitant Circumstances sufficiently indigitate the person For the words were spokeÌ„ by Boniface the Popes Vicegerent As if there were not the same indigitating CircuÌ„stances here as well as there the words being spoken by Austin the Popes Legate and Vicar as well as Boniface in the name of Pope Gregory to the Britons which were answered here by Dinoth His second exception to Dinoths Testimony is that there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes the See being removed from Caerleon to Menevia or S. Davids fifty yeares before this That it was removed before this I acknowledge but how long before this is uncertain Some Authors make S. Gregory and S. David to have died
Subjection at all to another Church They all agree in this the Britons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all waies ordained at home independent upon any forrain Prelate ought no subjection to Rome And there fore it is no great wonder if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the favourite both of the Pope and people not long before his own promotion to the Papacy whether the Ilanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet who having commended this Dinoth for a learned and a prudent man he addeth that Austin meeting him did demand that they should performe subjection to him as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome and demanded further that he would help him in preaching but he denied the one and the other Still Subjection is denied With these Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry Spellman and all our Antiquaries doe agree exactly And none of our Historiographers that I know doe disagree from it in the least who write upon that subject though some set it down more fully then others Iudge now Reader of Mr. Serjeants Knowledge or Ingenuity who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play and when I said the British Clergy did renounce all obedieÌ„ce to the Bishop of Rome citing Bede and all others telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once I challenge him to name but one Historiographer who affirmeth the contrary to that which all these doe affirm if he be not able as he is not I might safely say without asking him leave that it striketh the Question dead His third Exception that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry Spellman found any other Antiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth mentioning is so dull and unsignificant a piece that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it And such like are his other Obâ—ections which helpresseth not but toucheth gently the Heads of them will not merit a repetition having been answered already by Doctor Hammond But when he is baffeld in the cause he hath a Reserve that Venerable Bede and Gildas and Fox in his Acts and Monuments do brand the Britons for wicked men making them as good as Atheists Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one he will neither wish the Pope such Friends nor envy them to the Protestants What needed this when he hath got the worst of the cause to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stinke We read no other Character of Dinoth but as of a pious learned and prudent man If Gildas or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular persons There were St. Davids St. Dubricius's St. Thelaâ—s's St. Oudoceus's and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda What have they said more of the Britons then God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people or more then the Saxons have said one of another or more then maybe retorted upon any NatioÌ„ in Europe Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions theÌ„ St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints The Question is whether the British Church did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome Let him adorn this Sparta and leave other impertinencies Sect. V. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdrawe their obedience from Rome The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consisting of these three particulars That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it And that they did it with due moderation His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three SectioÌ„s whereof this is the first Whatsoever he prateth in this Section of my shuffing away the whole Question by balking the Bishop of Romes divine right to his Soveraignty of power to treat of his Patriarchall right which is humane is first vain For I alwayes was and still am ready to joine Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Romes divine right to a Monarchicall power in the Church saving alwaies to myself and my cause this advantage That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiasticall are inconsistent And this right being saved I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Popes Monarchy then about his Patriarchate Secondly as it is vaine so it is altogether impertinent for my Ground is this that a Soveraign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the publick good to change any thing in the externall Regiment of the Church which is not of divine Institution but the Popes pretended Patronage of the English Church and his Legislative Iudiciary and dispensative power in the exteriour Courtes of the same Church doe concern the externall Regiment of the Church aud are not of divine Institution Here the Hindge of our Controversy doth move without encombring our selves at all with Patriarchall Authority Thirdly I say that this discourse is not onely vaine and extravagant but is likewise false The Popes Protopatriarchall power and the Authority of a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as the keper of Apostolicall Traditions deposited in that Church are the fairest flowers in his Garland Whatsoever power he pretendeth to over the whole Church of Christ above a Primacy of Order is altogether of humane right and the Application of that Primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of humane right And whatsoever he presumeth of the Vniversall Tradition of the Christian Church or the Notion which the former and present world and we our selves before the Reformation had of the Papacy that is of the Divine right of the Popes Soveraignty is but a bold ratling groundlesse bragge I did and doe affirm that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand yeers since not explicitly by making a formall Resignation of it but implicitly by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it I was contented to forbeare further disputing about Patriarchall rights upon two Conditions one that he should not presume that the Pope is a Spirituall Monarch without proving it The other that he should not attempt to make Patriarchall Privileges to be Royall Prerogatives This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me If he had had so much Civility in him he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him of two Errours which I was sure he would Commit After all his Bravadoes all that he hath pretended to prove is but a Headship a First Movership a Chief Governourship about which we have no Difference with them and all the proofe he bringeth even of that is a bold presumption that there
hold out encroachments with the point of the sword without any medling with just right Other division then this which he himself hath allowed we believe our Ancestours intended none we hold none and so are accountable for none The main Question is whether the Britannick Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not I have demonstrated the contrary already that they were not and had alwaies their Ordinations at home But his Conclusion which he puts upon me that true complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government is a vain assertion of his own no CoÌ„clusion of mine He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit whether he that mainteineth the Negative or he that mainteineth the Affirmative ought to prove He saith according to his old Pueriles that a Negative may be proved in Logick No man doubteth of it or denieth it Quis eâ—im potest negare I said on the Contrary that in this case which commeth here in difference between us according to the strict rules of Law the burthen to proue resteth onely on his side who affirmeth As the Question is here between us whether we had other Remedies then to make such a Reformation as we did We say No. They say Yea. It is possible to â—rove there might be other Remedies â—ut it is impossible to prove there were no â—ther Remedies Galen or Hippocrates himâ—elf would not have undertaken such a Taske to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease then that which they used It is not for want of Logicall Forms that Negatives are not to be proved â—n matter of Fact but for want of sufficient Mediums He saith he is no Bowler and so â—nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowle It may be it is true but if I should put him to prove this Negative it is impossible But so farre as a Negative of that nature is capable of proofe I did prove it by our Addresses to Popes and Councells and long expectation in vain that we had no other Remedy then that which we used to thrust out their Vsurpations by the power of the sword which course he himself adviseth and we practised The division is not made by them who thrust out Vsurpations but by them who brought them in and defend them I said that not onely our Ancestors but all Catholick Countries did maintein their own privileges inviolated and make themselves the last Iudges of their Grievances from the Court of Rome Hence he concludeth with open Mouth therefore there were other Remedies there needed no Division Alas poore man how he troubleth himself about nothing They and we used the very same Remedies the same that he adviseth in this place The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made What then had not the King the Sword in his own hands Did it not lie in his power to right himself as he listed and to admit those pretended encroachments onely so far as he thought just and fitting Yes the King had the sword in his hands and did right him self and cast out those Papall Usurpatious so far as he found Iust and now when we have followed your own advise you call us Schismaticks and Dividers Sr. we are no Dividers but we have done our Duties and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Vsurpations as we have done you are the Schismaticks by your own Confession He pleadeth If Papall Authority be of Christs Institution then no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment Right But those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out are neyther of Christs Institution nor of Mans Institution but meer Vsurpations Neither doe we seek to abolish Papall Authority but to reform it from Accidentall Abuses and reduce it to its first Institution The best Institutions Divine or Humane may sometimes need such Reformation Here is nothing like proofe but his World of Witnesses and his Immemoriall Tradition presumed not proved To shew that no Nation suffred so much as England under the Tyranny of the Roman Court he saith I produce nothing but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope Well would he have a better witnesse against the Pope then the Pope him self Habemus confitentem reuÌ„ He was pleasant indeed but Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat VVhat hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing He asketh whether those Testimonies which I produce be Demonstrative or rigorous Evidences I thinke he would have me like the unskilfull Painter to write over the Heads of my Arguments This is a Demonstration It would become him better to refute them and shew that they are not Demonstrative then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions I shewed that England is not alone in the Seperation so long as all the Eastern Southern Northern and so great a part of the Western Church have seperated themselves from the Court of Rome and are seperated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we In answer to this he bids me shew that those I call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith c. This is first to hang men up and then to examine their cause first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke and embrace their upstart Vsurpations with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely before they gave such a temerarious sentence against the much greater part of Christendome in so weighty a cause But for their rule of Faith they have a more certain and Authentick Rule then he himself by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentick rule of Faith then Pius the fourths Creed and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground then particular supposititious Tradition which wanteth both Perpetuity and Vniversality I said that we desired to live in the peaceable Communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestours as far as the Roman Court will give us leave He answereth that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers c That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled had no mind to be hanged That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us but a request of an unreasonable favour from them to admit us into their Communion and would be most absurd in Government c. Whether they hold us for theirs or not is not much materiall if they did it were the better for themselves if they doe not it is not the worse for us so as Christ own us for his it skilleth not much whether they say come ye blessed or goe ye cursed whether we be the wheat or Chaffe their tongues must not winnow us Although he snuffe at