Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
other Churches and not Rome St. Peter might have continued Bishop of Antioch untill his death and then Antioch had still been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches He might have been neither Bishop of Antioch nor Rome and then the other Churches had wanted such an hereditary Mistriss All this is confessed by Bellarmine Doth Paul the ninth make us new Articles of Faith of so great contingency that were not of perpetuall necessity How can the Church of Rome be the foundation of all Christians in all places when there have been so many Christian Churches ever since the dayes of the Apostles who never had any thing to doe with Rome nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome If the Pope be the Master of all Christians he is but a young Master for we finde no such expression in all the primitive times Why were the ancient Bishops so grosly over-seen to stile him their Brother their Collegue their Fellow who was their Master It might be modesty in the Pope to use such familiar expressions as a Generall calls all his Army fellow Souldiers but it was never heard that a private Colonell or Captain did call his Generall fellow Souldier or a Servant call his Master fellow Servant or an ordinary Clerk call his Bâ—shop his Brother St. Peter writ himself a fellow elder not a Master If St. Paul had known that the Roman Church had been the Mistriss and foundation of all other Churches he would have given them their due title and the whole Scripture had not been so silent in so necessarie a point But he saith the Popes Supremacy is neither against the two Creeds nor the fiâ—st four generall Councells intimating thereby that it excludes none from salvation and consequently is no sufficient cause of separation I answer first that it is against the four first generall Councels if this were a proper place for the discussion of it I answer secondly that though it were not opposite to the Creed or the first four generall Councells yet if it be not virtually included in the Creed being as it is by them obtruded upon all Christians as an Article of faith or a necessarie part of saving truth extra quam non est salus without which there is no salvation it becomes a just and sufficient cause of separation to all those upon whom it is so obtruded Of this more in the next argument My second argument may be thus reduced That Court which obtruded newly coyned Articles of faith such as the Doctrin of the seven Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images Indulgences and especially the Popes Supremacy upon the Christian world as absolutely necessary to salvation and necessarie conditions of Catholick communion and excommunicateth and anathematizeth above three parts of the Christian world for not admitting them is fearfully schismaticall But the Court of Rome doth all this That these are no old Articles appeareth by all the ancient Creeds of the Church wherein they are neither explicitely nor virtually comprehended That they are made new Articles by the Court of Rome appeareth by the Bull of Pius the fourth wherein they are added to the old Creed ut unius ejusdem fidei professio uniformiter ab omnibus exhibeatur that the profession of one and the same faith may be declared uniformly by all and one certain form thereof be made known to all And lastly That the Court of Rome hath solemnly excommunicated with the greater excommunication and anathematized and excluded so farre as lieth in their power from the communion of Christ all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen and reformed Churches being three times more in number then themselves for not receiving these new Articles or some of them and especially for not acknowledging the Sovereign Power and Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop and his Court appeareth undeniably by the famous Bull of Pius the fifth called Bulla caenae because it is read in die caenae Domini or upon Thursday before Easter In way of answer to this he asketh how this was any cause of King Henry's revolt I reply first that though Henry the eighth had not thought of this so it had not been causa procreans a productive cause of the separation yet to us it is a most just cause to condemn them of Schism Secondly the revolt or more truly the separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome was not made by Henry the eight or the English Church but by the Pope and Court of Rome who excommunicated him and his Kingdome for not enduring their encroachments and usurpations He and his Kingdome were passive in it only the Court of Rome was doubly active first in revolting from the right Discipline of their Predecessors and secondly in excluding the party wronged from their communion But in the separation of England from the oppessions of the Court of Rome I confesse that Henry the eighth and the Kingdom were active And this very ground to avoid the tyranny and ambition and avarice of the Roman Court was the chief impulsive cause both to the English and Eastern Christians For though the Sovereignty of the Roman Bishop was not obtruded upon them in form of a Creed yet it was obtruded upon them as a necessarie point of Faith If Henry the eight had any other private sinistre grounds known only to himself they doe not render the Reformation one jod the worse in it self but only prove that he proceeded not uprightly which concerneth him not us Secondly he answereth that though they profess that it is necessary to salvation to be under the Pope as Vicar of Christ yet they say not that it is necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it If all this were true yet it were too much to oblige the whole Christian world to submit to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ by virtue of the commandement of God But I fear that Pope Pius by his Bull and all they by their swearing in obedience thereunto doe make it to be necessary necessitate medii so as none can be saved who doe not actually beleeve it And then there was little hope of salvation throughout the whole Christian World in the times of the Councells of Constance and Basile out of the Popes own Court which was then the only Noahs Arke The words of their Oath are these Hanc veram catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest c. This true catholick faith without which no man can be saved which I profess freely and hold truly in present I doe promise vow and swear by the help of God to retein and confess perfect and inviolated most constantly to my last gasp and will take care so farre as in me lyeth to cause it to be taught and preached to all that shall be committed to my charge If it were not necessary necessitate medii some
might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
prescribed to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches He referred the cause of Caecilianus an Ecclesiasticall cause to Miltiades Bishop of Rome and Marcus and Rhetecius and Maternus and Marinus as his Delegates or Commissioners visum est mihi it hath seemed good to me c. He accepted Appeals from the judgment of the Bishops He commanded Caecilianus to repair to Anilinus the Proconsul and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects as deputed and authorised by him as Judges to doe justice upon Ecclesiasticall Delinquents He sent for the Bishops assembled by his commandement at a Councell first at Tyrus then at Hierusalem that they should repaire with speed to Constantinople evestigio ad castra nostra maturetis to give an account to him of their actions and to shew how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments In a word he medled so much in Ecclesiasticall affaires that he made himself as a common Bishop constituted by God I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanitie we rejoyce but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests Eusebius and other Bishops he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the Minister of God And accordingly they were spoyled of their dignities and cast out of the Cities His second witness is Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius but which Valentinian which Theodosius where this Epistle is to be found he is silent and leaveth us if it were worth the labour to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay But the truth is there is nothing in it which concerneth this question nothing which we deny The words as they be alleged by him are these All antiquity hath given the Principality of Priesthood over all to the Bishop of the City of Rome Our question is concerning the Politicall Principality of Kings and Emperours and his answer is concerning the Principality of Priesthood Let them retain their Principality of Priesthood so they leave to Sovereign Princes their just Principality of Power We are ready to give them a principality of Priesthood if that would content them And neither all antiquity nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of Power Or at least such a Supremacy of single sovereign monarchichall Power as they require about which our controversie now is A Lord chief Justice hath a principality of Order among his brother Judges of the same Coyfe and Bench and in some circumstantiall respects a kinde of eminency or principality of Power but no single supremacy so as to be able to crosse their votes with a non obstante Such a supremacy of sovereing single universall power of Priesthood the Church of God did never know either at Rome or elsewhere The Bishops of Rome were so farre from having power over generall Councells that they had no single power over their fellow Patriarchs So farre from having power over Emperours that they have been delegated by Emperours as their Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes have been convened before Emperors and deposed by Emperors Primitive Bishops use to stile Popes their brethren their collegues their fellows but never Ecclesiasticall Princes If he mean the second Valentinian his authority weighs nothing he was a young Novice mis-led by his Arrian Mother a wilfull ill-advised woman If he mean another Valentinian I shall shew him that he exercised this politicall Supremacy in Ecclesiasticall affaies it may be to the questioning of his Prince of Priests His third witness is Theodosius the younger in his Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus his words are these It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle with Ecclesiasticall matters Yet he did meddle with Ecclesticall matters This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the holy Scriptures as if himself had been a Bishop This is that Theodosius which made this following Law We decree that who follow the ungodly faith of Nestorius or obey his wicked Doctrine if they be Bishops be cast out of the holy Churches but if Lay men anathematized This is that Theodosius that convocated the generall Councell of Ephesus by his Authority Royall and sent Candidianus thither to be his Deputy among other things set diligenter inspiceret c. to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops so see that no dissensions did arise among them to disturbe the consultations of Synods and to represse them likewise otherwise he might as well have staid at home Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged Candidianum ad banc sacram Synodum abire jussimus sed eae lege c. We command Candidianus to goe to this holy Synod but upon this condition that he should have nothing to doe with questions and controversies which concern Doctrines of faith for it is unlawfull for one not registred in the catalogue of Bishops to thrust himself into ecclesiasticall affairs and consultations This is as much as to say that Candidianus was not sent by the Emperour to dispute in the Councell about Theologicall questions which it is probable he did not understanding nor to overawe the Bishops or controlle their votes We are of the same minde with Theodosius and say as much as he that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of Theologicall questions And though we give the severeign Regiment of the Church in some sense to Princes within their own Dominions yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads but upon mature advise of free Synods of Ecclesiasticall persons who are their proper Counsellors in Church affairs All men know that Candidianus could have no decisive voice in a generall Councell So we would not have Princes meddle with the Keyes of the Church either the Key of Knowledge or the Key of Order We confesse that some causes in the first instance belong properly to Bishops yet the last Appeal may be to the King We say there are many things which Kings cannot doe in their own persons and yet may be done by fit Delegates by their Royall authority His fourth witness is Valentinian the elder It is not lawfull for me who am of the People to search curiously such matters let Priests who have care of these things meet where they please The case was this Valentinian had associated his Brother Valens with him in the Empire Valens was an Arrian Valentinian an orthodox Christian yet so as he troubled not those who were of a contrary Opinion He being at this time in his voyage through Thracia towards Rome the orthodox Bishops about the Hellespont and in Bythinia sent their Depuities unto him to request him to give them leave to assemble together in Councell for the establishment of the right Faith wherein they acknowledged him
the politicall Head of the Church It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in so sublime a question concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in this exigence of affairs being in his voyage in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor who was an Arrian and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father whose Subjects these Bishops were as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given then that he did give Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes yet not without good advise especially in such high points of Faith as that was and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods and Bishops The same method is observed by us at this day The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases but leave all to Priests No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit Which our Highnesse hath commanded to be Preached every where This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the covetousnesse of the Clergy which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of not against the Emperors who made the Law but against the Clergy who deserved it In the Code we finde Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian as that to Florianus That a Bishop rebaptizing one who had been formerly Baptized out of ignorance of the Law should be deprived of his Bishoprick It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit speaketh that in Occidentem profectus c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine and after some debates they did chuse Saint Ambrose Some may say if it was his right why did he not chuse him himself I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one as knowing his right and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time jubet Ambrosium extemplo initiari mysteriis Episcopum ordinari The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries and to be ordeined Bishop Neither was this the case of Constantine or Theodosius or Valentinian alone Socrates writes more generally That from Constantines time when the Emperors became Christians Ecclesiasticall affaires seemed to depend upon their beck His fifth witnesse is Basilius Basilius Emperor in the seventh Synod speaketh thus to the Laity He is mistaken Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod but Constantine and Irene but it is true that in the time of the 8 th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity The case is this one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Orientall Church into great dangers whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words Nullo modo nobis licet c. It is no way lawfull for us Laymen to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes nor at all to resist the whole Church and oppose an universall Synod For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs Bishops and Priests Basilius was in the right It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as Bâ—shops doe that is to say to have decisive Voices or to meddle above their capacities much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels or to vie reason for reason with them The Bishops form of subscription was this Ego B. definiens subscripsâ— I B. have subscribed to this as my definition The Laymans form was this Ego L. consentiens subscripsâ— I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it There is a great difference between defining and consenting But as Kings are never minors because they are presumed to hâ—ve a wise Councel so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay-men who have a learned Councel of Ecclesiasticall persons to direct them All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part which only is in question between us Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments His sixth witnesse is Charles the great Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wilihaâ—e by command of the high Bishop and universall Pope Adrian c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spirituall matters It is a great degree of confidence to dare to cite Charles the great to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires To cite him who convocated Councels yeerly by his own Authority and reformed the Church Who sate himself in Synods not only as a hearer but as a Judg that is with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel Auditor Arbiter adfui and made Ecclesiasticall Decrees in his own name discernimus Deo donante decrevimus Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme which was then a place but newly conquered by himself and newly converted but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self To whom this very Pope Adrian whom he citeth with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne release and acquit for ever all their claim right and interest in the election of succeeding Popes The case cited was this Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts and desired much their conversion finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno constiâ—uit Episcopatu He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure Episcopalem constituimus Cathedram and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit extat privilegium eidem Ecclesiae a memorato Rege Collatum He endowed the Churches and commanded the inhabitants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them hoc nostro Majestaâ—is
receive it when God shall reveal it to them How far this may excuse not the crime but their persons from formall Schisme either a toto or a tanto I determine not but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master But though these Protestants were worthy of this contumely yet surely the Romanists are no fit persons to object it whose opiniastrety did hinder an uniform Reformation of the western Church Who did first invest Presbyters with Episcopall Jurisdiction and the power of ordeining and confirming but the Court of Rome by their commissions and delegations for avaritious ends And could they think that the world would beleeve that necessity is not as strong and effectuall a dispensation as their mercicinary Buls It is not at all materiall whether Episcopacy and Priesthood be two distinct Oâ—ders or distinct degrees of the same Order the one subordinate to the other whether Episcopal ordination doe introduce a new Character or extend the old For it is generally confessed by both parties Protestants and Roman Catholicks that the same power and authority is necessary to the extensioâ— of a Character or grace given by ordination which is required to the institution of a Sacrament that is not humane but divine These avaritious practises of that Court though it be not commonly observed were the first source of these present controversies about Episcopacy and ecclesiasticall Discipline which doe now so much disturb the peace of the Church The second fault which he imputeth to me is That I endeavor to clear the English Church from Schisme only in relation to the Church of Rome not to all other Churches It was altogether needless to have troubled his own head or his Readers with this For first he esteems none of all those Churches to be true Churches but a Mass of Monsters an Hydra of many heads or so many Packs of Hereticks and Schismaticks making the Roman Church and the Catholick Church to be Convertibles Secondly it had not only been vain but a sign of guilt to make a defence before we were accused None of those Churches nor any body else that ever I heard of hath accused us for deserting them before R. C. and he hath received his answer If it had been needfull the Church of Rome had saved us that labour by excommunicating them before hand I only wish more intelligence between us and them My third fault is That I endeavour principally to justifie our separation from the Roman Church for the personall faults of Popes And my fourth fault is That I justifie our separation from the Court of Rome for their evill manners That this is not lawfull to doe he proves by sundry authorities and arguments I think the rather because no man denyes it or doubts of it or because he would insinuate to his Reader that we doe deny it If he had pleased he might have contracted these two faults into one The Pope and his Court make but one consistory and personall faults and evill manners are the same thing It had been needfull to have joyned them together to give them a little more weight for being twisted they weigh not half a graine First I deny that we hold personal faults or evil manners a sufficient cause of separation Secondly that separation which was made was made by themselves not by us Thirdly I deny that the Pope or Court of Rome ever had right to any Jurisdiction over us And if they ever had any pretence of right we had other manner of grounds for separation than evill manners As new Articles of faith obtruding of idolatrous superstitions and sinfull duties gross usurpation of the rights of the soveraign Prince and all orders and degrees of Subjects the overthrow or endangering of the publick peace and tranquillity of the Kingdome unlawfull oaths contrary to our allegiance to our King contrary to that duty which all Christians doe owe to generall Councells and lastly the Popes quitting of his Patriarchall power Yet by his leave tyranny and oppression and rapine are somewhat more than personall faults and may be just grounds to Princes and Common-wealths to substract obedience untill there be a reformation of exorbitant abuses Some personall faults as Simony aud Schism may give just occasion to Christians to separate from pretended Popes But there are other faults inherent in the Office of the Pope not his Episcopall Office which was instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor his Patriarchall Office which was instituted by the Church but his pretended Monarchicall Office whereby he hath usurped a power paramount over the highest Tribunall of the Church that is a generall Councell whereof more shall be said in due place These faults give just cause to a generall Councell to separate the Popes themselves and to take away their domineering Courts or to a soveraign Prince with a Nâ—tionall Councell to shake off their tyrannicall Yoke CHAP. 2. Concerning the stating of the Question IN stating the Question I observed this Method first to shew what Ecclesiasticall Separations were not Schismaticall As first those Separations which proceed out of a sudden passionate heat without attempting to make any parties as those between St. Paul and Barnabas St. Hierome and Ruffinus St. Chrysostome and Epiphanius Secondly premeditated clashings of Bishops or Churches long maintained if they forbear to censure one another and be ready to submit to the determination of a generall Councell are not schismaticall as those between the Roman and African Bishops about appeals and rebaptization Thirdly where just cause of separation is given for there the Separaters are innocent and they who give the cause are Schismaticks Fourthly separation from an erroneous Church or Pastor in their errors Of all these and their proofs R C. takes no notice at all but passeth silently by them without either granting denying or distinguishing The first Exception that he takes is against my two supposed definitions of Schisme the former is Schisme is a criminous scissure rent or division in the Church an ecclesiasticall sedition like to a mutiny in an Army or a faction in a Sate The second meer Schisme is a culpable rupture or breach of the Catholick Communion And to supply my defect he promiseth a better definition of his own True Schisme is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church Really I doe not wonder if my definitions be not complete I doe not take my self to have so happy a vein that all that I utter should be a definition I did not hold it needfull nor had any purpose to define Schisme but only to explane it which my very words might have taught him Schisme signifies a criminous scissure not is but signifies And those two similitudes added to the foot of my pretended definition like a mutiny in an Army or faction in a State Similitudes are apt to illustrate but not to define The definition and the thing defined are ever the same Those
persons sent into Ireland by the Pope that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesties Dominions was to prepare the Subjects to assist forrein invaders to excite the People to Rebellion and to deprive her Majesty of her Crown and dignity and life it self Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some Though many of them who were bred in those Seminaries were Pensioners of the Pope the King of Spain or the Duke of Guise all which at that time were in open hostility with the Crown of England Is it not lawfull to forbid Subjects to be bred in an enemies Countrie or to turn their Pensioners or if they doe goe out of themselves to exclude them from their native Soyle Yet in other places and it may be in those Colleges also many others preserved their principles of loyalty At the same time Doctor Bishopp one of the Roman communion writ a Book to prove that the constitution obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran Councell upon which the Popes authority of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their allegiance is founded was not decreed by the Fathers nor ever admitted in England but was a private Decree of Pope Innocent the third If all his Fellowes had held the same moderation there had been no need of such Lawes But it is a remediless misery of Societies that when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and the Innocent publick Justice which seeks to prevent the common danger looks upon the whole Society with one eie And if any innocent persons suffer they must not blame the Law but their own Fellowes who gave just occasion for the making of such severe Lawes So we see how many things here were of their own election First they were warned by an Edict not to study in those Seminaries which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in publick hostility with the Crown of England Nevertheless they would not doe it They were commannded to return home by a prefixed time They would not doe it This alone had been sufficient to punish them as Traitors by the ancient lawes of the Land Yet further they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England nor to exercise their priestly Functions there Yet they did it And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Councel That he was come over and would not desist untill he had either turned them to be Roman Catholicks or died upon their Lances To conclude if we view the particular Lawes we shall finde that they looked more upon the Court of Rome then the Church of Rome The Act and Oath of Supremacy were framed in the daies of Henry the eighth by Roman Catholicks themselves The first penall Lawes of this nature that I finde made by Queen Elizabeth were in the sixth year of her reign against those who should maintain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing or refuse the Oath of â—upremay twice The second in the fourteenth year of her reign against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an Heretick Schismatick or Infidell And likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome to reconcile any of the Queens Subjects or Indulgences or Agnus Dei or the like Yet was this never put in execution for six years untill the execution of it was extorted All this either concerned the Court of Rome or such Acts as were not necessary to a Roman Catholick for the injoyment of his conscience A man might beleeve freely what his conscience dictated to him or practise his own religion so he prated not too much nor medled with others Afterwards in the twenty third year of her reign issued out the Proclamation against the English Seminaries wherein her Subjects were bred Pensioners to the enemies of her Crown The last Lawes of this kinde were made in the twenty fourth year of her â—eign against those who should diswade English Subjects from their obedience to their Prince or from the Religion established or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome In all these Lawes though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions and treasons and deprivations and extremest necessity there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen Maryes Priest or any that were ordained within the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving so they were not over busie and medled with others These might have sufficed or officiating to Roman Catholicks if the Pope had pleased But he preferred his own ends before their safty Non his juvenius orta parentibus infecit aequor sanguine These were not principled for his purpose nor of that temper that his affaires required And therefore he erected new Seminaries and placed new Readers according to his own minde And in conclusion forced the Queen to use necessary remedies so save her selfe and the Kingdome These things being premised it will not be difficult to answer to all which R. C. saith First he saith that in all the pretended cases of treason there is no election but of matters of Religion and that they suffer meerly for matters of Religion without any shew of true Treason I confess that Treason is complicated with Religion in it But I deny that they suffer meerly for Religion any more then he that poisoned an Emperour or a Prior in the Sacrament could have been said to suffer for administring the Sacrament and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament or then he who out of blinde obedience to his Superior kills a man can be said to suffer death for his conscience or he who being infected with the Plague and seeking to infect others if he be shot dead in the attempt can be said to suffer for his sickness In so many designs to take away the Queens life in so many rebellions in so many seditious tenets in so many traitorous books and lastly in adhering unto and turning Pensioner to a publick professed Enemy of their Prince and native Country can he see no treason nothing but matters of Religion If he cannot or will not yet they who were more nearly concerned in it had reason to look better about them He asks how I can tearm that politicall Supremacy which is Supremacy in all causes to wit Ecclesiasticall or Religious I answer very well As the King is the Keeper of both Tables to see that every one of his Subjects doe his duty in his place whether Clergy-man or Lay-man and to inflâ—ct politicall punishment upon them who are delinquent And where he saith that Queen Elizabeth challenged more he doth her wrong She Challenged no more And moreover in her first Parliament tooke order to have the head of the English Church left out of her Title He demands further whether Nero by the same right might not have condemned St. Peter and St. Paul of Treason for coming to Rome with forbidden Orders and seeking to seduce his Subjects from the
Popes but for many of the rest and especially for that which did virtually include them all that is the Legâ—slative power in ecclesiasticall causes wherein the whole body of the Kingdome did claim a neerer interest in respect of that receptive Power which they have ever injoyed to admit or not admit such new Laws whereby they were to be governed it had been folly and madness in the Popes to have attempted upon it One doubt still remains How ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction could be said to be derived from the Crown For they might be apt enough in those dayes to use such improper expressions First with the Romanists themselves I distinguish between habituall and actuall Jurisdiction Habituall Jurisdiction is derived only by ordination Actuall Jurisdiction is a right to exercise that habit arising from the lawfull application of the matter or subject In this later the Lay Patron and much more the Soveraign Prince have their respective Interests and concurrence Diocesses and Parishes were not of divine but humane institution And the same persons were born Subjects before they were made Christians The ordinary gives a School master a license or habituall power to teach but it is the Parents of the Children who apply or substract the matter and furnish him with Scholars or afford him a fit subject whereupon to exercise this habituall power Secondly we must also distinguish between the interior and exterior Court between the Court of Conscience and the Court of the Church For in both these Courts the power of the Keies hath place but not in both after the same manner That power which is exercised in the Court of Conscience for binding and loosing of sinnes is soly from Ordination But that power which is exercised in the Court of the Church is partly from the Soveraign Magistrate especially in England where Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is enlarged and fortified with a coercive power and the bounds thereof have been much dilated by the favour and piety of Christian Princes by whom many causes have been made of Ecclesiasticall cognisance which formerly were not from whom the coercive or compulsory power of summoning the Kings Subjects by processes and citations was derived It is not then the power of the Keies or any part or branch thereof in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction even in the exterior Court of the Church which is derived from the Crown But it is coercive and compulsory and coroboratory power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actuall Ecclesiasticall Jurisdicton in the Court of the Church to prevent the oppressions of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquillity of the Common-wealth which belongs to Sovereign Princes As to his corollary that never any King of England before Henry the eighth did challenge an exemption from all Iurisdiction under Christ it is as gross a mistake as all the rest For neither did Henry the eighth challenge any such exemption in the Court of Conscience Among the six bloody Articles established by himself that of auricular confession was one Nor in the Court of the Church seeing the direct contrary is expressly provided for in the Statute it self The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being and his Successors shall have power and authority from time to time by their discretions to give grant and dispose by an instrument under the Seal of the said Archbishop unto your Majesty and to your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm as well all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies Instruments and all other Writings for causes not being contrary or repugnant to holy Scriptures and Lawes of God as heretofore hatâ— been used and accustomed to be had and obtained by your Highnes or any of your most noble Progenitors or any of yours or their Subjects at the See of Rome So vain a suggestion it is That King Henry the eighth did free himself not only from Papall Authority but also and as well from Episcopall Archiepiscopall and all Spirituall Authority either abroad or in England And his Argument which he presseth so seriously to prove it is as vain That the Head of a Company is under none of that Company The Pope himself is under his Confessor who hath power to binde him or loose him in the Court of Conscience The Master of a Family is under his own Chaplain for the regiment of his Soul and under his Physitian for the government of his Body What should hinder it that a Politicall Head may not be under an Ecclesiasticall Pastor The Kings of England are not only under the forrein Jurisdiction of a generall Councell but also under their Ecclesiasticall Pastors though their own Subjects Only they are exempted from all coercive and compulsory power Let us trie whether he be more fortunate in opposing then he hath been in answering The Kings of England saith he permitted Appeales to Rome in ecclesiasticall causes as is evident in St. Wilfrides case who was never reproved nor disliked for appealing twice to Rome not so but the clear contrary appeareth evidently in Saint Wilfrides case Though he was an Archbishop and if an Appeal had been proper in any case it had been in that case This pretended Appeal was not only much disliked but rejected by two Kings successively by the other Archbishop and by the body of the English Clergy as appeareth by the event For Wilfride had no benefit of the Popes sentences but was forced after all his strugling to quit the two Monasteries which were in question whether he would or not and to sit down with his Archbishoprick which he might allwnies have held peaceably if he would This agrees with his supposed Vision in France that at his return into his Country he should receive the greatest part of his possessions that had been taken from him that is praesulatum Ecclesiae suae his Archbishoprick but not his two Monasteries But this is much more plain by the very words of King Alfride cited by me in the Vindication to which R. C. hath offered no answer That he honored the Popes Nuncios for their grave lives and honorable lookes Here is not a word of their credentiall Letters O how would a Nuncio storm at this and take it as an affront The King told them further That he could not give any assent to their legation So that which R. C. calles permitting was in truth downright dissenting and rejecting The reason followes because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter Is not this disliking What could the King say more incivillity then to tell the Popes Nuncios that their Masters demands were unreasonable or what could be more to the purpose and to the utter ruin of R. C. his cause then that the Decrees of the pope were impugned not once but twice not by a few
Cardinals did not know at that time how to give a reasonable answer Wherein he pleads that his Ancestors had granted free elections ad rogatum instantiam dictae sedis upon the earnest entreaty of the See of Rome which now they endeavoured to usurpe and seize upon who made himself in Parliament the Judge of all the grievances which the Kingdome sustained from the Pope who made expresse Lawes against the oppressions of the Roman Court declaring publickly That it was his duty and that he was bound by his oath to make remedies against them This was more then twenty such complements as this which is most true in a right sense That it was but a complement appeareth evidently by this The question was about Edward the thirds right to the Crown of France and his confederation with Lewis of Bavaria these were no Ecclesiasticall matters the King sent his Ambassadors to the Pope to treat with him about his right to the Crown of France But notwithstanding his supereminent judgment he gave them in charge to treat with the Pope not as a Iudge but as a private person and a common friend not in form nor in figure of judgement He attributeth no more to the Pope then to another man according to the reasons which he shall produce His own words are these parati semper nedum a vestro sancto cunctis presidente judicio imo a quolibet alio de veritate contrarii si quis eam noverit humiliter informari qui sponte rationi subjicimur aliam datam nobis intelligi veritatem cum plena humili gratitudine complectemur Being ready alwaies humbly to be informed of the truth of the contrary if any man know it not only from your holy judgement being placed in dignity before all or as it is in another place before every Creature but from any other And we who are subject to reason of our own accord will embrace the truth with humility and thankfulnesse when it is made known unto us This was Edward the thirds resolution to submit to reason and the evidence of the truth from whomsoever it proceeded Yet though the case was meerly Civil and not at all of Ecclesiasticall cognizance and though Edward the third did not would not trust the Pope with it as a Judge but as an indifferent Friend yet he gives him good words That his judgement was placed in dignity above all Creatures which to deny was to allow of Heresie Why doe we hear words when we see Deeds The former Popes had excommunicated Lewis of Bavaria and all who should acknowledge him to be Emperor Neverthelesse Edward the third contracted a firm league with him and moreover became his Lieutenant in the Empire Pope Benedict takes notice of it writes to King Edward about it intimates the decrees of his predecessors against Lewis of Bavaria and his adherents signifying that the Emperor was deprived and could not make a Lieutenant The King gives fair words in generall but notwithstanding all that the Pope could doe to the contrary proceeds renews his league with the Emperor and his Commission for the Lieutenancy and trusted more to his own judgement then co the supereminent judgement of the Pope So he draws to a conclusion of this Chapter and though he have proved nothing in the world yet he askes What greater power did ever Pope challenge then here is professed Even all the power that is in controversie between us and them He challenged the politicall headship of the English Church under pretence of an Ecclesiasticall Monarchy He challenged a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes He challenged a Dispensative power above the Lawes against the Lawes of the Church whensoever wheresoever over whomsoever He challenged liberty to send Legates and hold legantine Courts in England without licence He challenged the right of receiving the last Appeals of the Kings Subjects He challenged the Patronage of the English Church and investitures of Bishops with power to impose a new Oath upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance He challenged the first Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiasticall livings and a power to impose upon them what pensions or other burthens he pleased He challenged the Goods of Clergy-men dying intestate c. All which are expresly contrary to the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England He confesseth That it is Lawfull to resist the Pope invading either the Bodies or the Souls of men or troubling the Common-wealth or indeavoring to destroy the Church I aske no more Yea forsooth saith he if I may be judge what doth invade the Soul No I confesse I am no fit Judge No more is he The main question is who shall be Judge what are the Liberties and Immunities of a nationall Church and what are the grievances which they sustain from the Court of Rome Is it equall that the Court of Rome themselves should be the Judges Who are the persons that doe the wrong Nothing can be more absurd In vain is any mans sentence expected against himself The most proper and the highest judicature upon Earth in this case is a generall Councell as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishops and their pretended Patriarch And untill that remedy can be had it is lawfull and behooveth every Kingdome or nationall Church who know best their own rights and have the most feeling where their Shoe wrings them to be their own Judges I mean only by a judgment of discretion to preserve their own rights inviolated and their persons free from wrong sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae And especially Sovereign Princes are bound both by their Office and by their Oaths to provide for the security and indemnity of their Subjects as all Roman Catholicks Princes doe when they have occasion And here he fals the third time upon his former Theme that in things instituted by God the abuse doth not take away the use Which we doe willingly acknowledge and say with Saint Austine Neque enim si peccavit Cecilianus ideo haereditatem suam perdidit Christus sceleratae impudentiae est propter crimina hominis quae orbi terrarum non possis ostendere communionem orbis terrarum velle damnare Neither if Cecilian offended did Christ therefore lose his inheritance And it is wicked impudence for the crimes of a man which thou canst not shew to the World to be willing to condemn the communion of the World But neither was that authority of the Bishop of Rome which we have rejected either of Divine or Apostolicall institution Nor have we rejected it for the personall faults of some Popes but because it was faulty in it self Nor have we separated our selves from the conjoyned communion of the Christian World in any thing I wish the Romanists were no more guilty thereof then we Of King Henries exemption of himself from all spirituall jurisdiction we have spoken formerly in this very Chapter CAAP. 5. THe scope of my fifth Chapter was to
shew that the Britannick Churches were free from all forrein jurisdiction for the first six hundred yeers and so ought to continue For the clearing of which point I shewed that there was a parity of power among the Apostles And that the Sovereignty did not rest in any single Apostle but in the Apostolicall college I shewed that in the age of the Apostles and the age next succeeding the highest Order in the Church under the Apostles were nationall Protarchs or Patriarchs And by what means and upon what grounds in after ages some of these Patriarchs came to be exalted above the rest and to obscure their fellowes But each of these within their own Patriarchates did challenge a jurisdiction independent upon any single Superior As might be made clear by many instances when Athanasius and Paulus procured the Letters of Pope Iulius for their restitution I meddle not with the merits of the cause the Bishops of the East took the reprehension of Iulius as a contumely they called a Councell at Antioch they accused Iulius sharply and shewed that he had nothing to doe to contradict them more then they did contradict him when he thrust Novatus out of the Church Neither did the great Protopatriarchs challeng this independency only but other lesser Patriarchs also as Saint Cyprian When Fortunatus Faelicissimus and others being sentenced and excommunicated in Africk addressed their complaint to the Bishop of Rome let us hear what Saint Cyprian said of it What cause had they to come and relate the making of a false Bishop against true Bishops Either that which they have done pleaseth them and they persevere in their wickednesse or if it displease them and they fall from it they know whether to return for whereas it is decreed by us all and it is equall and just that every ones cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a certain portion of the Lords flock is assigned to each Pastor which he is to govern and to give an account of his actions to the Lord. Therefore it behooveth those whom we are over not to run up and down nor to break the firm concord of Bishops by their subtle and deceitfull rashnesse But to plead their cause there where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their crimes unlesse the authority of the African Bishops who have sentenced them already seem to a few desperate cast awaies to be inferior c. To say with Bellarmine that Saint Cyprian speaks only of the first instance is to contradict Saint Cyprian himself who saith expressely that the cause had been sentenced already in Africk Then I shewed the bounds of the ancient Roman Patriarchate out of Ruffinus The rest of the Chapter may be reduced to a Syllogisme Whatsoever Church or Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ ought to continue free and exempted for ever notwithstanding the subsequent usurpation of any forrein Prelate or Patriarch This was clearly and irrefragably proved out of the words of the Councel it self And if the Bishop of Rome did intrude himself after that time he is a Robber and an Usurper and can never prescribe to a legall possession according to the famous rule of the Law Adversus furem aeternae authoritas esto But the Britannick Churches were free and exempted from the forrein Jurisdiction of the Roman Court from the beginning untill the generall Councell of Ephesus and after untill the six hundreth year of Christ. This assumption was proved first by their silence upon whom the proofe in law doth rest being not able to produce one instance of the exercise of their Jurisdiction in Britain or any of the Britannick Islands for the first six hundred yeares and in some parts of them scarcely for 1200. years When the Popes Legate would have entred into Scotland to visite the the Churches there about the year 1238. Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him to doe so alleging that none of his Predecessors had ever addmitted any such neither would he suffer it and therefore willed him at his own perill to forbear Secondly by priority of foundation the Britannick Church being the elder Sister and ancienter then the Roman and therefore could not be subject to the Roman Church from the beginning that was before there was a Roman Church Thirdly it was proved by the right of ordination and election of all our Primats For all other right of Jurisdiction doth follow or pursue the right of Ordination But it is most evident that all our British Primates or Archbishops were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius St. David Samson c. not only in the reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even untill the time of Henry the first after the eleven hundreth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth Semper tamen c. Yet alwayes untill the full Conquest of Wales by the King of England Henry the first the Bishops of Wales were consecrated by the Archbishop of St. Davids And he likewise was consecrated by other Bishopâ— as his Suffragans without professing any manner of subjection to any other Church But principally it was proved by the answer of Dionothus the reverend and learned Abbat and Rector of the Monastery and University of Bangor and from the solemn Sentence or Decree of two British Synods in the point recorded by all our Historiographers who write the Acts of those times I confess he nâ—bles here and there at some odde ends of this discourse but taketh no â—â—ner of notice of the main grounds especially the two British Synods which are express in the point and the Answer of Dionâ—thus that they refused absolutely to submit to the Jurisdiction of the Pope or to receive Austin for their Archbishop That as for that man whom they called the Pope they oâ—â—gâ—â—t 〈◊〉 no obedience but the obedience of love that they were immediately under God subject to the Bishop of Caer Leon But let us take a view of his exceptions First he saith That Bellarmine hath not these words That Christ in saying these words As my Father sent use so send I you did endue his Apostles with all fullness of power that mortall men were capable of Neither did I cite his words but his sense as he might see by the Character but that Bellarmine said as much or more then this I will now make it good Let him speak for himself Therefore that the Apostles received theâ—r Iurisdiction immediately from Christ first the words of our Lord doe testifie John 20. As my Father sent me so send I you which place the Fathers Crysostome and Theophylact doe so expound that they say plainly that the Apostles were made by these words the Vicars of
nothing of Jurisdiction From St. Ninian he proceeds to Palladius and St. Patrick Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland And not forgetfull of Ireland sent thither S. Patrick In all the instances which he hath brought hitherto we finde nothing but Preaching and Converting and Christening not one syllable of any Jurisdiction Will the British Records afford us so many instances of this kinde and not so much as one of any legislative or judiciary act Then certainly there were none in those dayes Whether Palladius was sent to the British or Irish Scots is disputable But this is certain that whithersoever he was sent he was rejected and shortly after died In whose place succeeded St. Patrick Therefore his Disciples hearing of the death of Palladius the Archdeacon c. came to St. Patrick and declared it who having received the Episcopall degree from a Prelate called Arator straightway took ship c. Here is nothing of Caelestinus but of Arator nor of a Mandate but St. Patricks free devotion He saith The same Pope sent thither St. German and Lupus to confute the Pelagian Heresie and both Britans Scots Picts and Irish willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes nor denyed that they had any authoritie over them I am wearie of so many impertinencies Still here is not one word of any Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops over the British Church but of their charity and devotion which we wish their Successors would imitate I confesse that Prosper saith that Peladius was sent by Caelestinus If it were so it concernes not this cause But Constantius and venerable Bede and almost all other Authors doe affirm positively that they were both sent by a French Synod to assist the Britans their neighbours against the Pelagians And it is most probable for they were both French Bishops St. German of Anxewe Lupus of Troyes Baronius labours to reconcile these two different relations thus It may be the Pope did approve the choyse of the Synod or it may be that Caelestine left it to the election of the Synod to send whom they pleased Admit either of these suppositions was true it will bring no advantage to his cause but much disadvantage If the Bishop of Rome had been reputed to be Patriarch of Britain and much more if he had been acknowledged to be a spirituall Monarch it is not credible that the Britannick Church should have applyed it self for assistance altogether to their neighbours and not at all to their Superior He addeth that they willingly accepted these Legates of the Popes He is still dreaming of Legates if they were Legates they were the Synods Legates not the Popes As much Legates and no more then the Messengers of the Brittish Church which they sent to help them were Legates eodem tempore ex Britanniâ directa Legatio Gallicanis Episcopis nunciavit c. at the same time the British Legates shewed their condition to the French Bishops what need the Catholick Faith did stand of their present assistance Had they not reason to wellcome them whom themselves had invited who were come only upon their occasion Or what occasion had they to deny their authority who neither did usurpe any authority nor pretend to any authority They came to dispute not to judge Aderat populus Spectator futurus ac Iudex I know Constantius and venerable Bede doe call them Apostolicus Sacerdotes Apostolical Bishops not from their mission but most plainly for their Apostolical Endowments erat in illis Apostolorum instar gloria authoritas c. That Saint Gregory did send Austin into England to convert the Saxons is most true that the British Churches did suffer him to exercise any Authority or Jurisdiction over them is most untrue Touching the precise time of his coming Historiographers doe not agree exactly All accord that it was about the six hundreth year of Christ a little more or less Before this time Cyprus could not be more free from forrein Jurisdiction then Britain was After this time we confess that the Bishops of Rome by the consent or connivence of the Saxon Kings as they came to be converted by degrees did pretend to some formalities of right or authority over the English Church at first in matters of no great consequence as bestowing the Pall or the like But without the consent or against the good pleasure of the King they had no more power at all Jeoffry of Monmouth saith that Dubritius primate of Britain was Legate of the See Apostolick I should sooner have beleeved it if he had proved it out of Gildas who lived in or about the age of Dubritius then upon the credit of Ieoffry of Monmouth who lived so many hundred years after his death whose Writings have been censured as too full of Fables It were over supine credulity to give more credit to him then to the most eminent Persons and Synods of the same and the ensuing age Dubritius was Primate of Wales in the dayes of King Arthur and resigned his Archbishoprick of Caer Leon to St. David who removed his Archiepiscopall See from thence to Minevia now called St. Davids by the licence of King Arthur not of the Pope King Arthur began his reign as it is commonly computed about the year 516. perhaps something sooner or later according to different accounts But certainly after the Councell of Ephesus from whence we demonstrate our exemption And so it can neither advantage his cause nor prejudice ours We are told of store of Roman Legats yet not so much as any one act of Jurisdiction pretended to be done by any of them Certainly either they were no Papall Legates or Papall Legates in those daies were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any legantine Court or legantine Power such as is exercised now a dayes St. Samson saith he had a Pall from Rome wherefore untruly saith L. D. that the Pall was first introduced in the reign of the Saxon Kings after six hundred years of Christ. He mistakes my meaning altogether and my words also I said not that the first use of the Pall began after the six hundreth year of Christ but the abuse of it that is the arbitrary imposition thereof by the Popes upon the British Churches When they would not suffer an Archbishop duely ellected and invested to exercise his function untill he had bought a Pall from Rome I know the contrary that they were in use formerly But whether they were originally Ensignes of honour conferred by Christian Emperours upon the Church namely Constantine and Valentinian as is most probable or assumed by Patriarches is a disputable point This is certain other Patriarches and Archbishops under them had their Palls in the primative times which they received not from Rome This Samson was Archbishop of Wales and had his Pall But it appeareth not at all that he had it from Rome It may be that they had
kept their ancient bounds But now when the State of the Empire is altogether changed the Provinces confounded and the Dominions divided among lesser Kings who are sometimes in hostility one with another and the Subjects of one Prince cannot freely nor securely repair for Justice into the Dominions of a forrein Prince without prejudice to themselves and danger to their native Country It is very meet that the Subjects of every Soveraign Prince should have finall Justice within the Dominions of their own Soveraign as well in Ecclesiasticall causes as Politicall And this is agreeable with the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England which neither permit a Subject in such cases to goe out of the Kingdome nor any forrein Commissioner to enter into the Kingdome without the Kings license Upon this ground the Bishops of Scotland were freed from their obedience to the Primate of York and the Bishops of Muscovia from the Patriarch of Constantinople But saith he That which is for the benefit of the Kingdome may be contrary to the good of the Church and should we prefer a Kingdome before the Church the Body before the Soul Earth before Heaven I answer that gain and losse advantage and disadvantage ought not to be weighed or esteemed from the consideration of one or two circumstances or emergents All charges damages and reprises must first be cast up and deducted before one can give a right estimate of benefit or losse If a Merchant doe reckon only the price which his commodity cost him beyond Sea without accounting Customes Freight and other charges he will soon perish his Pack If the benefit be only temporall and the losse Spirituall as to gain Gold and lose Faith which is more precious then Gold that perisheth it is no benefit but losse What should it advantage a man to gain the whole World and lose his own Soul The English Church and the English Kingdome are one and the same Society of men differing not really but rationally one from another in respect of some distinct relations As the Vine and the Elm that susteins it they florish together and decay together Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis that which is truely good for the Kingdome of England cannot be ill for the Church of England and that which is truely good for the English Church cannot be ill for the English Kingdome We may in reason distinguish between Alexanders friend who studies to please him and the Kings friend who gives him good advise The one is a friend to his person the other to his office But in truth whilest Alexander is King and the person and office are united he that is a true friend to Alexander is no enemy to the King and he who is a true friend to the King is no foe to Alexander Indeed if by the Church he understand the Court of Rome then that which was good for the Kingdome of England was prejudiciall to the Church in point of temporall profit But seeing as he confesseth The Soul is to be preferred before the Body it turns to their greater advantage by lessening the account of their extortions He addeth That a Kingdome is but a part of the Church and it is not in the power of any part only for its particular profit to alter what is instituted by the universall Church for her universall good no more then it is in the power of a part of the Kingdome as one Shire or Province to alter for its private inâ—erest what hath been decreed by Parliament for the good of the Kingdome His instance of a Shire or a Province is altogether impertinent for no particular Shire or Province in England hath Legislative authority at all as the Kingdome hath But particular Corporations being invested with power from the Crown to make Ordinances for the more commodious government of themselves may make and doe make ordinarily by Lawes and Ordinances not contra against the Acts of Parliament but praeter besides the Acts of Parliament And let him goe but a little out of the Kingdome of England as suppose into the Isle of Man or into Ireland though they be branches of the English Empire yet he shall finde that they have distinct Parliaments which with the concurrence of the King have ever heretofore enjoyed a power to make Lawes for themselves contrary to the Lawes of the English Parliament But we are so far from seeking to abrogate or to alter any institution of the universall Church or its representative a generall Councell in this case that on the contrary we crave the benefit of their Decrees and submit all our differences to their decision No generall Councell did ever give to the See of Rome Jurisdiction over Britain And though they had yet the state of things being quite changed it were no disobedience to vary from them in circumstances whilest we persist in their grounds To make my word good I will suppose the case to have been quite otherwise then it was That Protestants had made the separation That they had had no ancient Laws for presidents That the Britannick Churches had not enjoyed the Cyprian priviledge for the first six hundred years Yea I will suppose for the present That our Primates were no Primates or Patriarchs And that the Britannick Churches had been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by generall Councells Yet all this supposed upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire and the great variation of affairs since that time it had been very lawfull for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishops of Rome though they had not quitted their Patriarchate and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves Provided that what I write only upon supposition he doe not hereafter allege as spoken by way of concession We have seen formerly in this chapter that the establishment of Primates or Patriarchs and Metropolitans in such and such Sees was meerly to comply and conforme themselves to the Edicts and civill constitutions of Sovereign Princes for the ease and advantage of Christians and to avoid confusion and clashing of Jurisdiction That where there was a civill Exarch and Protarch established by the Emperour there should be an ecclesiasticall Primate or Patriarch And where a Citie was honoured with the name and priviledge of a Metropolis or mother Citie there should be a Metropolitan Bishop The practise of Bishops could not multiply these dignities but the Edicts of Emperors could And this was in a time when the Emperors were Pagans and Infidells Afterwards when the Emperours were become Christians if they newly founded or newly dignified an Imperiall Citie or a Metropolis they gave the Bishop thereof a proportionable ecclesiasticall preheminence at their good pleasure Either with a Councell as the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon with the consent and confirmation of Theodosius and Martian Emperours did advance the Bishop of Constantinople from being a mean Suffragan under the Metropolitan of
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
Prince or Princes but a whole succession of Kings with their convocations and Parliaments proceeding according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah But he faith that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde then that he violated his conscience Neither will this uncharitable censure if it were true advantage his cause the black of a bean His conscience might make the reformation sinfull in him but not unlawfull in it self The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self depends not upon the conscience of the doer but the merit of the thing done His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders The former a great Counsellor of King Henry a contriver of the oath a propugner of the Kings Supremacy both in print and in his Sermons and a persecutor of them who opposed it For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost He had reason to say he was constrained both to hide his own shame and to flatter the Pope after his revolt whom he had so much opposed especially in the dayes of Queen Marie Otherwise he had missed the Chancellership of England and it may be had suffered as a Schismatick Yet let us hear what he faith that King Henry had a purpose to resigne the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it All this might have been and yet no intention of reconciliation Great Princes many times look one way and row another And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion or prevent a forrein warre will make no scruple to use it But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation that if he did not hear them certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus they would certainly interpret it that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves to seeke their remedy from elsewhere This was a faire intimation and they were as good as their words This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia downright for the Kings Supremacie against the Pope Lastly this is who published to the world that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point and the King alone goe against his conscience His later witness Nicholas Sanders is just such another whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry He feineth that when his death did draw nigh he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick Testimony he produceth none but his own Authority They who will not beleeve it may chuse But that which followeth spoileth the credit of his relation That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him answered that the King was wiser then all men that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration and had nothing now to fear That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bâ—shops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abhominably against his conscience as he makes this to be is not credible But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made But here is a double mistake first in the time this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made currente Rota Some intimations had been given of what was intended but the Bell was not then rung out Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement in order of time Secondly in the Subject this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine The words are these That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence untill he the King had indifferent Judges who might hear the business he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King and delivered it at Rome It was not accepted The Kings answer came not within the time limited Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence and the Separation followed So this was about the change of a Wife not of Religion before either King Henrys substraction of obedience or the Popes fulmination In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope but in no case from the Papacy which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution whereas Protestants saith he for the faults of some Popes have separated themselves both from Pope Papacy and Roman Church And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution If he had been pleased to observe it I took away this distinction before it was made shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline doe warrant a more permanent separation even untill they be reformed I doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope Papacy and Church of Rome but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another As the Pope may have his proper faults so may the Papacy so may the Church of Rome We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Roman Church In all other things we maintain communion with her We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See if he
supreme Governor of the Realm of England which signifies no more but this that there is no other supreme Governor of the Realm but he which is most true and to say that he is the only and supreme Governor which implies that there is no other Governor but he which is most false There are both spirituall and civill Governors in England besides him To say the Pope is the only supreme Bishop in his own Patriarchate is most true but to say that he is the only and supreme Bishop in his Patriarchate is most false this were to degrade all his Suffragans and allow no Bishop in his Province but himself Secondly I answer that there is no Supremacy ascribed to the King in this Oath but meerly politicall which is essentially annexed to the Imperiall Crown of every sovereign Prince The Oath saith that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of his Highness Realms and Dominions What doth Saint Peter himself say less to his own Successors as well as others Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme How often doth Saint Gregory acknowledge the Emperor to be his supreme Governor or sovereign Lord and profess obedience and Subjection unto him and execute his commands in ecclesiasticall things That Common-wealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of Jurisdictions where there are two Supremes like a Serpent with two heads at either end one The Oath addeth in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes This is true with some limitations as first either by himself or by fit Substitutes who are ecclesiasticall Persons For our Kings cannot excommunicate or absolve in their own persons Secondly it is to be understood of those causes which are handled in foro contentioso in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience Thirdly either in the first or in the second instance by receiving the appeales and redressing the wrongs of his injured Subjects Some things are so purely spirituall that Kings have nothing to doe in them in their own persons as the preaching of the Word the administration of the Sacraments and the binding and loosing of Sinners Yet the persons to whom the discharge of these Duties doth belong and the persons towards whom these Duties ought to be discharged being their Subjects they have a Power paramount to see that each of them doe their duties in their severall stations The causes indeed are ecclesiasticall but the power of governing is politicall This is the true sense of the Oath neither more nor less as appeareth plainly by our thirty seventh Article Where we attribute to our Princes the chief government by which Titles we understand the mindes of some slanderous Folkes to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwaies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself this is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be ecclesiasticall or temporall and restrein with the civill Sword the stubborn or evill doers Here is no power asserted no punishment to be inflicted by the King in his own person but only politicall I confess persons deputed and delegated by the King doe often excommunicate and absolve and act by the power of the Keyes but this is by the vertue of their own habit of Jurisdiction All which the King contributes by his Commission is a liberty and power to act in this particular case an application of the matter which a Lay Patron or a Master of a Family or a subordinate Magistrate may doe much more a sovereign Prince This power many Roman Catholick Doctors doe justifie The King of Spain cites above twenty of them Let the Princes of this World know that they owe an account to God of the Church which they have received from him into their protection for whether peace and right ecclesiasticall Discipline be increased or decayed by Christian Princes God will require an account from them who hath trusted his Church unto their Power All this Power the King of Spain exerciseth in Sicily in all ecclesiasticall causes over all ecclesiasticall persons as well in the first instance as the second This Power a Lay-Chanceller exerciseth in the Court Christian This Power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her Nuns Whilest all the Mariners are busied in their severall employments the sovereign Magistrate sits at the Stern to command all and order all for the promotion of the great Architectonicall end that is the safty and welfare of the Common-wealth It followes in the Oâ—th as well as temporall that is as truly and as justly but not as fully nor as absolutely And that no forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realm That is to say neither the Pope nor his Court. For a generall Councel which is no standing Court but an aggregate body composed partly of our selves is neither included here nor intended If this be the new Creed of the English Protestant Church as he calls it in scorn it was the old Creed of the Britannick Church as I have proved evidently in the vindication If this profession of Royall Supremacy in our sense doe make men Hereticks and Schismaticks we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman Doctors along with us And for Sovereign Princes we shall leave them few except some necessitous person who could not subsist otherwise then by the favourable influence of the Roman Court Very many Doctors doe hold that for the common good of the Republick Princes have Iurisdiction in many causes otherwise Subject to the Ecclesiasticall Court not only by the positive Law of God but by the Law of Nature And many more give them a power indirectly in causes Ecclesiasticall over Ecclesiasticall persons so far as is necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Tranquility of the Commonwealth nec putem ullum Doctorem Catholicum refragari saith the same Author in the place cited Neither doe I think that any Catholick Doctor will be against it Now I have said my minde concerning the Oath of Allegiance who they were that first contrived it and in what sense we doe maintain it I hope agreably to the sense of the Christian World except such as are prepossessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome As our Kings out of Reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of Supreme heads of the English Church so though it bee not meet for me to prevent their maturer determinations I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of Subjects who may erre out of invincible ignorance they would be pleased to lay by the oath also God looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices why should not man doe the
which continue in communion with it are the onely Churches which have true doctrine in vertue of the first principle above mentioned and the right governement in virtue of the second and consequently are the entire Catholick or Vniversall Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schisme being excluded Our answer is ready that the Church of Rome or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplementall Articles and erroneous additions contrary to the first principle and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawfull government contrary to the second principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of supertio n and Schisme And lastly where he saith that my onely way to clear our Church from Schisme is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith or the latter the necessary bond of governement he is doubly mistaken First we are the persons accused our plea is negative or not guilty So the proof lieth not upon us but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismaticks Secondly if the proof did rest upon our sides we do not approve ofâ—his adviâ—e It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our substractions but they by their additions There is no doubt but Christs legacy ought to be preserved inviolable but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters heir by Christs ordination And that this was the constant beliefe of the Catholick world at any time This is his province let him either make this good or hold his peace Sect. 2. So his Prologue is ended now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments My first ground was because not Protestants but Roman Catholicks themselves did make the first separation To which his first answer is If it were so how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning Many waies First it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence when their best friends and best able to judge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for them who in all other things were great zeloâ—s of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Fagot did yet condemn thâ—m and justify this separation Secondly though it doth not alwaies excuse a tâ—to from all guilt and punishment to be misled by others into errour If the blind llead the blind both fall into the ditch yet it doth alwaies excuse a tanto it lesseneth the sin and extenuateth the guilt Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schisme If this separation be an Errour in Protestants the Roman Catholicks do owe an account to God both for themselves and us did they find cause to turne the Pope out of England as an intruder and usurper and could Protestants who had no relation to Rome imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again Thirdly in this case it doth acquit us not onely a tanto but a toto not onely from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schisme so longas we seek carefuly after truth and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents if he enquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and to correct his errours when he finds them he is not to be reputed an hereticke If this be true in the case of heresy it is more true in the case of Schisme Thus if it had been a crime in them yer it is none in us but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us but a just and necessary duty Secondly he answereth that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants because they persecuted Protestants For Protestants persecute Protestants Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians Puritans and Beownists persecute one another VVhat then were VVarham and Heath aud Thureleby Tunscall and Stokesley and Gardiner and Bonner c. all Protestants did Protestants enjoy Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks iâ— England and say Masses in those daies will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church and opposers of the Reformation If he had wriâ— thus much whilest they were living they would have been very angry with him Yet at the least if they were Protestants let him tell me which of these Sects they were of Lutheranâ— c. But he telleth us that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essentiall part of our reformation and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant He is mistaken This part of the reformation was done to our hands it was their reformation not ours But if he will needs have the kingdomes and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths daies onely for renouncing the Popes absolute universall Monarchy I am well contented we shall not lose by the bargain Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants then all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day then we want not store of Protestants even in the besome of the Roman Church it self Sect. 3. My second Ground saith he was because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated This he is pleased to call notoriously false impudence it self because a law was made in Henry the eighths time and an oath invented by which was given to the King to be head of the Church and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England Is this the language of the Roman Sâ—hooles or doth he think perhaps with his outcriâ—s and clamours as the Turks with their Alla Alla to daunt us and drive us from our cause Christian Reader of what Communion soever thou art be but indifferent and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falshood and impudence doth rest between him and me I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome did make no now law but vindicate their ancient Liberties It seemeth he confureth the Titles without looking into the Chapters did I say they made no new statutes No I cited all the new statutes which they did make and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here Yet I said they made no new law because it was the law of the land before that statute was made The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the
land when soever these were infringed or an attempt made to destroy them as the liberties of the Crowne and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope it was the manner to restore them or to declare them by a statute which was not operative to make or create new law but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law This I told him expressely in the vindication and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers Fitz Herbirt and my Lord Cook to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law but declarative to restore ancient law This appeareth undeniably by the statute it self That England is an Empire and that the King as head of the body politicke consisting of the spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall Iustice for all matters Here he seeth expressely that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality which is all that we assert at this day was the an e nt fundamentall law of England And lest hâ—e should accuse this Parliament of partialiâ—y I produced another that was more ancient The Crowne of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to be submitted to the Pope Here the Kings politicall Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamentall Law of the Land Let him not say that this was intended onely in temporall matters for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressely Ecclesiasticall What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more and to accuse me of impudence Secondly he saith that I bring diverse allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted or where the Pope is expressely denied the power to do such and such things Do we professe the Pope can pretend no more then his right Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted He stileth the Authorities by me produced meer Allegations yet they are as authentick Records as England doth afford But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in generall expressions of the Popes pretences and such or such things as if the controversy had been onely about an handfull of goats wool I will make bold to represent some of the Popes pretences and their declarations against them And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestours in those particulars he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question They declared that it was the custom or common law of the land ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa that no Pope might be appealed unto without the Kings licence They made a law that if any one were found bringing in the Popes letters or mandates into the kingdome let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and kingdome They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiasticall causes concerning the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church over all Ecclesiastical persons in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars nor make spiritual corporations nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary nor appropriate Churches nor to dispose Benefices by lapse nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy but the King did all these things as I shewed at large in the vindication They permitted not the Popes canon law to have any place in England further then they pleased to receive it They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishopricks and investitures of Bishops They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the Kings license They admitted no Legates from the Pope but meerly upon courtesy and if any was admitted he was to take his oath to doe nothing derogatory to the King or his Crowne If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication in England without the Kings consent or bring over the Popes bull he forfeited all his goods So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject nor dispose of an English Benefice nor send a Legate a latere orso much as an authoritative bul into England nor to reâ—eive an appeal out of England without the kings license But saith he To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not This was not meerly to limit an authority but to deny it VVhat lawfull Jurisdiction could remain to him in England who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence nor to send any Citation or sentence thither nor execute any authority over an English Subject either at Rome by himself or in England by his deputies without licence That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent Give us the same limitation which our Ancestours alwayes claimed that no forraign authority shall be exercised in England withour leave and then give the Pope as much authority as you please volenti non fit injuria consent takes away error He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him He demandeth first were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths raign Yes but it is no strange matter to explaine or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses as we see in magna Charta the statute of proviso's and many other Statutes Secondly he asketh whether we began our Religion there that is at that time when these ancient lawes were made no I have told him formerly that these statutes were onely declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdome VVe began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time before they had a Church at Rome But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion Lastly he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France Spaine Germany and Italy it self and yet they are Catholicks and hold communication with the Pope Yes there are some such laws in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English as I have shewed in the vindication And therefore the Popes friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience loyall Countries VVhat â—use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more then we in England concerns not me nor this present discourse And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section he cries out How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and
Jurisdiction Secondly The Church and Kingdom of England had more lawful just and noble grounds for their separation from the Court of Rome then any base parasitical compliance with the humours of any Prince whatsoever as he cannot chuse but see in this very Chapter But who is so blind as he that will not see Thirdly We do confess that the Primitive Papacy that is an Exordium unitatis a beginning of unity was an excellent meanes of Concord We do not envy the Bishop of Rome or any Honour which the Catholick Church did allow him But moderne Papacy which they seek to obtrude upon us is rather as Nilus saith the cause of all dissentions and Controversies of the Christian World Lastly To his demand concerning the English Court and Church Whether I would condescend to the rejection of Monarchy and to the extirpation of Episcopacy for the misgovernment of Princes or abuses of Prelats I answer No But this will not advantage his cause at all for three Reasons First never were any such abuses as these objected either to Princes or Prelates in England Secondly we seek not the extirpation of the Papacy but the reduction of it to the primitive constitution Thirdly Monarchy and Episcopacie are of divine institution so is not a papall Sovereignty of Jurisdiction His parliamentary Prelacie hath more sound then weight We need not be beholden to Parliament for the Justification of our Prelacie as he will finde that undertakes it Sect. 6. We are now come to the grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome Reader observe and wonder All this while they have been calling to us for our grounds they have declaimed that there can be no just grounds of such a separation They have declared in the Hypothesis that we had no grounds but to comply with the Humours of a lustful Prince Now we present our grounds being reduced to five Heads First The most intolerable extortions of the Roman Court committed from age to age without hope of Remedy Secondly Their most unjust usurpations of all Rights Civil Ecclesiastical sacred and prophane of all orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Thirdly the malignant influence and effects of this forreign jurisdiction destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical Discipline producing dis-union in the Realm factions animosities between the Crown and the Mitre intestine discord between the King and his Barons bad intelligence with neighbour Princes and forreign wars Fourthly a list of other inconveniences or rather mischiefs that did flow from thence as to be daily subject to have new Articles of faith obtruded upon them exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to forsake the Communion of three parts of Christendome to approve the Popes rebellion against general Councels and to have their Bishops take an Oath contrary to their oath of Allegeance to maintaine the Pope in his rebellious usurpations Lastly The weakness of the Popes pretences and the exemption of the Brittannique Church from forreign jurisdiction by the Decree of the General Councel of Ephesus Certainly he ought to have shewed either that these grounds conjoyned were not sufficient or that they were not true or that there were other remedies But he is well contented to pass by them all in silence which is as mueh as yeeld the Cause Thus he It is then of little concernment to examine whether his complaints be true or false since he does not shew there was no other remedy but division What is it of little concernment to examine whether the grounds be sufficient or no It belongs not to me to shew that there was no other remedy that is to prove a negative but if he will answer my grounds it belongs to him to shew that there was other remedy yet so far as a negative is capable of proof I have shewed even in this Chapter that there was no other remedy I shewed that the Pope and his Court were not under the Jurisdiction of the King or Church of England so as to call them to a personal account I shewed that the English Nation had made their addresses to the Pope in Councel out of Councel for ease from their oppressions in diversages and never found any but what they carved out to themselves at home after this manner He adds And much more since it is known if the authority be of Christs institution no just cause can possibly be given for its abolishment This is a very euthumematical kinde of arguing If the sky fall we shall have larks He knows right well that it is his assumption which is latent that we deny that we have abolished any thing which either Christ or his Church did institute He proceedeth But most because all other Catholick Countries might have made the same exception which England pretends yet they remaine still in communion with the Church of Rome and after we have broke the Ice do not hold it reasonable to follow our example Few or no Catholick Countries have sustained so great oppression from the Court of Rome as England hath which the Pope himself called his Garden of delight a Well that could not be drawn dry All other Countries have not right to the Cyprian Priviledge to be exempt from forreign jurisdiction as Brittaine hath Yet all other Catholick Countries do maintaine their owne Priviledges inviolated and make themselves the last Judge of their grievances from the Court of Rome Some other Catholick Countries know how to make better use of the Papacy then England doth yet England is not alone in the separation so long as all the Easterne Southerne Northern and so great a part of the Westerne Churches have separated themselves from the Court of Rome and are separated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we yet if it were otherwise we must live by precepts not by examples Nay saith he The former ages of our Countrey had the same cause to cast the Popes Supremacy out of the Land yet rather preferred to continue in the peace of the Church then attempt so destructive an innovation Mistake not us so much we desire to live in the peaceable communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestors at far as the Roman Court will give us leave neither were our Ancestors so stupid to see themselves so fleeced and trampled upon and abused by the Court of Rome and to sit still in the mean time and blow their noses They did by their lawes exclude the Popes supremacy out of England so farre as they judged it necessary for the tranquility of the Kingdome that is his patronage of Churches his Legates and Legantine Courts his buls and sentences and excommunications his legislative power his power to receive appeals except onely in cases where the Kingdome did give consent They threatned him further to make a wall of separation between him and them We have more experience then our Ancestours had that their remedies were not Soveraigne or sufficient enough that if we
factious persons but by two or three Kings successively and by Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury a Roman with the flower of the Clergy and the whole Councel of the English He proceedeth they never disliked that Profession of Saint Austins Fellowes that the See Apostolick had sent them to preach in Britanny as she is accustomed to doe in all the World First why should they dislike it they had no reason for it No good Christian can dislike the Husbandmans sowing of Wheat but every good Christian doth dislike the envious mans supersemination or sowing of Tares above the Wheat Or if there had been reason how could they dislike that which in probability they did not know The Letter out of which these words are cited was not written to the English Kings but to the Scotish Bishops by Laurentius Successor to Austin in the See of Canterbury and Melitus of London and Iustus of Rotchester which three were all the Bishâ—ps of the Roman Communion that were at that day in Britain But if perchance he imagine that the Popes sending Preachers into Britain doth either argue an ancient or acquire a subsequent Jurisdiction over Britain he erres doubly first they did nothing without the Kings licence for matter of fact they produced no Papall mandates which had been in vain to a Pagan King At their first arrivall the King commanded them to abide in the Isle of Thanet untill his further pleasure was known They did so Afterwards they were called in by his command he gave them an express licence to preach to his Subjects and after his own conversion majorem praedicandi licentiam a further and larger licence So the conversion of Kent was by the Popes endeavoures and the Kings authority Secondly for matter of right Conversion gives no just title to Jurisdiction How many Countries have been converted to the Christian Faith by the Britans and English over which they never pretended any authority It followeth they never disliked That Saint Gregory should subject all the Priests of Britain under Saint Austin and give him power to erect two Archiepiscopall Sees and twelve Episcopall Sees under each of them Whom could Ethelbert being himself a Novice in Christianity better trust with the disposing of Ecclesiasticall Affaires in his Kingdome then those who had been his Converters But either Saint Gregory in his projects or rather Austin in his informations did mightily over-shoot themselves for the twentieth part of Britain was not in Ethelberts power And all the other Saxon Kings were Pagans at that time We have seen that after the death of Austin and Gregory there were still but one Archbishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion throughout the Britannick Islands The British and Scotish Bishops were many but they renounced all Communion with Rome The British Bishops professed plainly to Austin himself in their Synod that they would not acknowledge him for their Archbishop And the Scotish Bishops did so much abhorre from the Communion of the Bishops of the Roman Communion that as themselves complained Dagamus one of the Scotish Bishops refused to eat with them or to lodge with them in the same Inne And yet he tells us in great earnest that they never disliked it He addeth they never disliked that Saint Melit should bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod to be observed of the Church of England It may be so But whether it was so or not whether they liked them or disliked them whether they received them or rejected them Venerable Bede who is his Author speaketh not a word This is not proving but presuming And why might they not receive them if they found them to be equall and beneficiall non propter authoritatem Legislatoris sed propter aequitatem Legis not for the authority of the Roman Synod but for the equity of their Decrees And what were their Decrees Ordinationes de vita quiete Monachorum Orders for the good conversation and quiet of Monks A matter of no great importance but great or small the Decrees of the Roman Synod were of no force in England unless they were received by the King and Kingdome and if they were received by the King and Kingdome then they were naturalised and made the Lawes of England not of Pope Boniface an usurping and if we may trust Saint Gregory his Predecessors an Antichristian Prelate They willingly admitted a Bishop of Canterbury sent to them and chosen by the Pope Why should they not admit him seeing it was their own desire and request to the Bishop of Rome in respect of the great scarcity of Scholars then in England to send them one as appeareth by the very letter of Vitalianus hominem denique docibilem in omnibus ornatum Antistitem secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem minime valuimus nunc reperire We could not finde for the present such a complete Prelate as your letters require and by the reception of the King quâ—d cum Nuncii certò narrassent Regi Egberto adesse Episcopum quem petierant a Romano Antistite when King Egbert had certain notice that the Bishop Theodore was come whom they had desired of the Roman Prelate So he was not obtruded upon them against their wills which was the case of patronage between us and them They acknowledged that Saint Peter was the speciall Porter of Heaven whom they would obey in all things I understand not why he urgeth this except it be to expose the simplicity of those times to dirision The case was this there was a disputation between Coleman and Wilfrid about the observation of Easter Coleman pleaded a tradition from Saint Iohn upon whose bosom Christ leaned delivered to them by Columba their first Converter Wilfrid pleaded a different tradition from St. Peter to whom Christ gave the Keies of the Kingdome of Heaven The King demanded whether that which was said of Saint Peter was true They acknowledged it was And whether any thing of like nature was said to Saint Columb They said no. Thereupon the King concluded Hic est Ostiarius ille cui ego contradicere nolo c. ne forte me adveniente ad fores Regni Coelorum non sit quireseret averso illo qui Claves tenere probatur This is the Porter whom I will not contradict least peradventure when I come to the gates of Heaven there be none to open unto me having made him averse to me who is proved to keepe the Keies No man can be so simple as to beleeve that there are Gates and Keies and Porters in Heaven It were but a poor office for Saint Peter to sit Porter at the Gate whilest the rest were feasting within at the Supper of the Lamb. The Keies were given to Saint Iohn as much as to Saint Peter They publickly engraved in the front of their Churches that Saint Peter was higher in degree then Saint Paul Let them place St. Peter as high as they please