as in justice he is bound he is not to be reputed a Schismatick If men might not be saved by a general and implicite repentance they were in a woful condition for who can tell how oft he offendeth Cleanse thou me from my secret faults And if by general and implicite repentance why not by general and implicite faith why not by general and implicite obedience So as they do their uttermost indeavours to learn their duties and are ready to conform themselves when they know them God looks upon his creatures with all their prejudices and expects no more of them then according to the talents which he hath given them If I had books for that purpose I might have cited many Lawes and many Authors to prove that the final separation from Rome was made long before the reformation of the Church of England But it is a truth so evident and so undeniable by all these who understand our affaires that I seem to my self to have done overmuch in it already I do expect that it should be urged by some that there was a double separation of the Church of England from Rome The former from the court of Rome The second from the Church of Rome The former in point of discipline The latter in point of Doctrine The former made in the daies of Henry the Eighth The other in the daies of Edward the sixth That if the Protestants were not guilty of the former yet certainly they were guilty of the later To this I give two answers first that the second separation in point of Doctrine doth not concern this question Whether the Church of England be Schismatical but another whether the Church of England be Haereticall or at least Heterodox for every error doth not presently make an haeresy which cannot be determined without discussing the particular differences between the Church of Rome and the Church of England It is an undeniable principle to which both parties do yeeld firm assent that they who made the first separation from the primitive pure Church and brought in corruptions in faith Leiturgy or use of the Sacraments are the guilty party Yea though the separation were not local but onely moral by introducing errours and innovations and making no other secession This is the issue of our controversie If they have innovated first then we are innocent and have done no more then our duties It is not the separation but the cause that makes a Schismatique Secondly I answer that as Roman Catholicks not Protestants were the authors of the Separation of England from the Court of Rome so the Court of Rome it self not Protestants made the Separation of England from the communion of the Church of Rome by their unjust and tyrannical censures excommunications and interdictions which they thundred out against the Realm for denying their spiritual Soveraignty by divine right before any reformation made by Protestants It was not Protestants that left the communion of the Church of Rome but the Court of Rome that thrust all the English Nation both Protestants and Roman Catholicks together out of their doores and chased them away from them when Pope Paul the third excommunicated and interdicted England in the daies of Henry the eighth before ever any reformation was attempted by the Protestants In that condition the Protestants found the Church and Kingdom of England in the daies of Edward the sixth So there was no need of any new separation from the communion of the Church of Rome The Court of Rome had done â—hat to their hands So to conclude my first Proposition Whatsoever some not knowing or not weighing the state of our affaires And the Acts and Records of those times have rashly or ignorantly pronounced to the contrary it is evident that the Protestants had no hand either in the separation of the English Church from the Court of Rome or in their separation from the Church of Rome The former being made by professed Roman Catholicks the later by the Court of Rome it self both before the reformation following in the dayes of Edward the sixth both at a time when the poor Protestants suffered death daily for their conscience upon the six bloody Articles CHAP. IV. That the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome diâ— make no new Law but vindicate their ancient Liberties THe second Conclusion upon examination will prove as evident as the former that Henry the eighth and those Roman Catholicks with him who made the great separation from the Court of Rome did no new thing but what their predecessors in all ages had done before them treading in the steps of their Christian Ancestors And first it cannot be denyed but that any person or Society that hath an eminent reputation of learning or prudence or piety or authority or power hath ever had and ever will have a great influence upon his or their neighbours without any legal Jurisdiction over them or subjection due from them Secondly it is confessed that in the primitive times great was the dignity and authority of the Apostolical Churches as Rome Antiâ—ch Ephesus Hierusalem Alexandria which were founded by the Apostles themselves And that those ancient Christians in all their differences did look upon the Bishops of those Sees as honourable Arbitrators and faithful Depositaries of the genuine Apostolical traditions especially wherein they accorded one with another Hence is that of Tertullian Constat omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus et originalibus conspi at c. Whatsoever doctrine agrees with those Apostolical original mother Churches is to be reputed true And in this sense and no other Saint Cyprian a great admirer and imitater both of the matter and words of Tertullian whom he honoured with the title of his Master doth call the Church of Rome a Matrix and a root But if the tradition varied as about the observation of Easter between Victor Bishop of Rome and Polycrates Bishop of Ephesâ—s the one prescribing from St. Peter and S. Paul the other from S. Iohn The respective Churches did conform themselves to their Superiours or if they were free as the Britannique Churches were to their own judgment or to the example of their neighbour Churches or kept them to the tradition delivered unto them by their first converters As in this very controversie about Easter and some baptismal rites the Brittish and Scottish Bishops alwaies adhered to the Eastern Church A strong presumption that thence they received the faith and were not subordinate to the Patriarchal See of Rome But yet all this honourable respect proceeded from a free prudential compliance without any perpetual or necessary subjection Afterwards some Churches lost some gained the place and dignity of Apostolical Churches either by custome so Ephesus lost it or by the Canons of the Fathers so Constantinople did get it or lastly by Imperial priviledges so Iustiniana and Carthage obtained it Thirdly it
then we are whilest things continue in the same condition by so much we should render our selves lesse Catholique and plunge our selves deeper into Schisme whilest we seek to avoid it 3. For the clearer and fuller discussion and demonstration whereof I shall observe this method in the Ensuing discourse First to state the question and shew what is Schisme in the abstract who are Schismatiques in the Concrete and what we understand by the Church of England in this question Secondly I will lay down six grounds or propositions every one of which singly is sufficient to wipe away the stain and guilt of Schisme from the Church of England how much more when they are all joyned together My six grounds or Propositions are these First that Protestants were not the authors of the late great separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks themselves such as in all other points were chief Advocates and Pillars of the Roman Church and so many that the names of all the known dissenters might be written in a little ring Secondly that in abandoning the Court of Rome they did not make any new Law but onely declare and restore the old Law of the Land to its former Vigour And vindicate that liberty left them as an inheritance by their Ancestours from the incroachments and usurpations of the Court of Rome Thirdly that the ancient Brittish and Scottish or Irish Churches were evermore exempted from the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops untill Rome thirsting after an universal unlawful Monarchy quitted their lawful Ecclesiastical power And so ought to continue free and exempted from all forrein Jurisdiction of any pretended Patriarch for evermore according to the famous Canon of the General Councel of Ephesus which Gâ—egory the Great reverenced as one of the four Gospels Fourthly that though the Authors of that Separation had not themselves been Roman Catholicks and though the Acts or Statutes made for that end had not been meerly declarative but also operative And although Brittain had not been from the beginning both de jure and de facto exempted from Roman Jurisdiction yet the King and Church of England had both sufficient authority and sufficient grounds to withdraw their obedience as they did Fifthly that all the Soveraign Princes and Republicks in Europe of the Roman Communion whensoever they have occasion to reduce the Pope to reason do either practise or plead for the same right or both Sixthly that the Papacy it self qua tâ—lis as it is now maintained by many with universality of Jurisdiction or rather sole Jurisdiction Iure divino with superiority above General Councels with infallibility of Judgment and temporal power over Princes is become by its rigid censures and new Creeds and Exorbitant decrees in a great part actually and altogether causally guilty both of this and all the greater Schismes in Christendome 3. Lastly I will give a satisfactory answer to those objections which those of the Roman Communion do bring against us to prove us Schismaticks CHAP. 2. The stating of the question what is Schisme who are Schismaticks and what is signified by the Church of England in this question EVery suddain passionate heat or misunderstanding or shaking of Charity amongst Christians though it were even between the principal Pastors of the Church is not presently Schisme As that between Saint Paul and Barnabas in the Acts of the Apostles who dare say that either of them were Schismaticks or that between Saint Hierome and Ruffinus who charged one another mutually with Heresie Or that between Saint Chrysostome and Epiphanius who refused to Joyn in prayers Saint Chrysostome wishing that Epiphanius might never return home alive And Epiphanius wishing that Saint Chrysostome might not dye a Bishop both which things by the just disposition of Almighty God fell out according to the passionate and uncharitable desires of these holy persons who had Christian Charity still radicated in their hearts though the violent torrent of sudden passion did for the time bear down all other respects before it These were but personal heats which reflected not upon the publick body of the Church to which they were all Ever ready to submit and in which none of them did ever attempt to make a party by gathering disciples to himself such a passionate heat is aptly stiled by the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a paroxisme or a sharp fit of a feverish distemper which a little time without any other application will infallibly remedy Secondly every premeditated clashing of Bishops or Churches about points of doctrine or discipline long and resolutely maintained is not presently criminous Schisme so long as they forbear to censure and condemn one another and to expel one another from their Communion and are ready to submit to the determinations of a general Councel Such were the contentions of the Roman and African Bishops about rebaptization and appeals It were hard to say that those two blessed Saints Cyprian and Austine and all those pious Prelates who joyned with them lived and dyed Schismaticks With this general truth agrees that of Doctor Holden fully that when there is a mutual division of two parts or members of the mystical body of the Church one from the other yet both retein Communion with the Vniversal Church which for the most part springs from some doubtful opinion or lesse necessary part of divine worship quamcunque partem amplexus fueris Schismaticus non audies quippe quod universa ecclesia neutram damnarit whatsoever part one take he is no Schismatick because the universal Church hath condemned neither part Whether he hold himself to this principle or desert it it is not my purpose here to discusse But this is much sounder doctrine then that of Mr. Knott that the parts of the Church cannot be divided one from another except they be divided from the whole because these things which are united to one third are united also between themselves Which errour he would seem to have sucked from Doctor Potter whom he either would not or at least did not understand That whosoever professeth himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole Of which he makes this use That Protestants forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome And yet do confesse it to be a member of the body of Christ therefore they forsake the Communion of the whole Church The answer is easie that whosoever doth separate himself from any part of the Catholique Church as it is a part of the Catholick Church doth separate himself from every part of the Catholick Church and consequently from the Universal Church which hath no existence but in its parts But if one part of the Universal Church do separate it self from another part not absolutely or in Essentials but respectively in abuses and innovations not as it is a part of the Universal Church but only so far as it is
flowers of the Crown so they might but hold the Diademe it self from their competitors Therefore our Ecclesiasticall law was called the Kings law because the edge and validity of it did proceed from authority royal our Ecclesiasticall Courts were stiled the Kings Courts by his Judges It is true the habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flowes from their Ordination But the actual exercise thereof in Publick courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious concessions of Soveraign Princes In a word the law being meerly intended as a remedy against usurpation it cannot be a new Law but onely a Legislative declaration of the Old Common Law of England I will conclude this Chapter with the words of Bishop Bilson As for his Patriarchate by Gods law he hath nonâ— in this Realm for Six hundred years after Christ he had nonâ— for the last Six hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none Above or against the Princes Sword he can have none to the Subversion of the Faith or oppression of his Brethreâ— he ought to have none you must seek further for Subjection to his Tribunall This Land â—weth him none CHAP. V. That the Britanick Churches were ever exempted from forraign Iurisdiction for the first six hundred years And so ought to continue THirdly supposing that the reformed Church of England had separated it self from Rome and supposing that the municipal laws of the Realm then in force had not warranted such a separation yet the British Churches that is the Churches of the British Islands England Scotland and Ireland c. by the constitution of the Apostles and by the solemne sentence of the Catholique Church are exempted from all forraign Jurisdiction and cannot be Schismatical in the lawful vindication of a just priviledge so well founded for the clearer manifestation whereof let us consider First that all the twelve Apostles were equall in mission equall in commission equall in power equall in honour equal in all thingâ— except priority of order without which no Society can well Subsist So much Bellarmine confesseth that by these words As my father sent me so send I you Our Saviour endowed them with all the fulnesse of power that mortall men were capable of And therefore no single Apostle had Jurisdiction over the rest par in parem noâ— habet potestatem but the whole Colledge of Apostles to which the supream Mesnagery of Ecclesiasticall affaires did belong in common whether a new Apostle was to be ordained or the office of Deaconship was to be erected or fit persons were to be delegated for the ordering of the Church as Peter and Iohn Iudas and Sylas Or informations of great moment were to be heard as against Peter himself Though Peter out of Modesty might condescend and submit to that to which he was not obliged in duty yet it had not become the other Apostles to sit as Judges upon their Superiour placed over them by Christ. Or whether the weightier questions of the calling of the Gentiles and circumcision the law of Moses were to be determined still we find the Supremacy in the Colledge Secondly that drousy dream that the plenitude of Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction was given by Christ to Saint Peter as to an ordinary Pastour to be derived from him to his Successours but to the rest of the Apostles as delegates for tearm of life to die with themselves as it is lately and boldly asserted without reason without authority either divine or humane so it is most repugnant to the doctrine of the Fathers who make all Bishops to be the Vicars and Embassadours of Christ not of the Pope and successours of the Apostles indifferently Vicaria ordinatione who make but one Episcopacy in the world whereof every Bishop hath an equal share St. Peter was a Pastor and the Pastoral office is of perpetual necessity in the Church True But so were all the rest of the Apostles Pastors as well as he And if we examine the matter more narrowly cui bono for whose advantage this distinction was devised it was not for S. Peters own advantage who setting aside his principallity of order is confessed to have had but an equall share of power with his fellow Apostles but fo rs the Popes advantage and the Roman courts whom they desire to invest solely with the key of all originall Jurisdiction And if we trace on this Argument a little further to search out how the Bishop of Rome comes to be Saint Peters heire ex assâ— to the exclusion of his Elder Brother the Bishop of Antioch they produce no authority that I have seen but a blind ill grounded legend out of a counterfeit Hegâ—sippus of Saint Peters being about to leave Rome and Christs meeting him upon the way and admonishing him to return to Rome where he must be crucified for his name which reason halts on both sides The foundation is Apocryphal and the superstruction is weak and unjointed without any necessary connexion Thirdly it appeareth not to us that the Apostles in their daies did either set up any universall Monarchy in the Church or so much dilate the borders or bounds of any one mans single Jurisdiction as to subject so great a part of the Christian World as the Western Patriarchate to his obedience The highest that they went if any of those Canons which bear their names be genuine was to nationall or provincial Primates or Patriarchs for a Protarch or Primate and a Patriarch in the language of the ancient Church signified one and the same thing in whose praeheminence there was more of order and care then of single Jurisdiction and power Read their three and thirtieth Canon It behooves the Bishops of every distinct Nation to know him who is their first or Primate and to esteem him as their head And to do nothing that is of difficulty or great moment contrary to his opinion But neither let him do any thing without the opinion of all them This Nationall Primacy or Protarchatâ— or Patriarchate under which the Britannique Churches flourished for many ages is the very same which we contend for Fourthly it is worthy of our inquiry how in processe of time some Primates did obtain a much more eminent degree of honour and a larger share in the government of the Church then others And of this their adventitious Grandeur we find three principal fountaines First ancient customes Secondly the Canons of the Fathers And thirdly the edicts of Christian Princes First ancient customes Upon this ground the first generall Councel of Nice settled the authority and priveledges of the three Patriarchal Sees of Rome Alexandria and Antioch Let ancient customes prevail And these customes commonly proceeded either from the memory of the Apostles who had founded such Churches from whence as from Apostolical fountaines their neighbours did fetch sound doctrine and reciprocally paid to them due respect So
challenge a Jurisdiction not upon us who deny it Men are not put to prove negatives Let them produce their Registers and shew for the first six hundred years what Ecclesiastical Courts the Roman Bishops or their Legates have held in Brittain what causes they have removed from thence to Rome upon appeals what sentences given in Brittain they have repealed there what British subjects they have excommunicated or summoned to appear at Rome let them shew what Bishopricks they have conferred in Brittain in those daies what British Bishops did then intitle themselves to their Bishopricks by the Grace of God and of the Apostolique See let them declare to the world how many of our British Primates or Patriarchs of York London or Caerleon have constantly or at all repaired to Rome to be ordained or have received Licenses or dispensations thence for their ordination at home or elsewhere for ordinationis jus caetera jura sequuntur He who is necessarily by law obliged to have recourse to a forraign Prelate for his ordination is thereby implyed to be inferiour or subject to his ordainer If they can say nothing to any of these points they may disclaime their Patriarchall right in Brittain and hold their peace for ever The reasons why I set York before London in the order of our British Patriarchs or Primates are these First because I find their names subscribed in that order in the Councel of Arles held in the year 314. consisting as some say of 200. as others say of 600. Bishops convocated by Constantine the great before the first Councel of Nice to hear and determine the appeal of the Donatists from the sentence of the Imperiall delegates whereof Melchiades the Bishop of Rome was one It were a strange sight in these daies to see a Pope turn Legate to the Emperours in a cause of Ecclesiasticall cognisance Secondly for the same reason that Rome and Constantinople in those daies of the Roman Puissance were dignified above all other Churches because they were then the seats of the Emperours York was then an Imperial City the Metropolis of the chief Britannick Province called at that time maxima Caesariensis where Severus the Emperour died and had his funerall pile upon Severs hill a place adjoyning to that City where Constantine the great was born in domo Regali vocata Pertenna in the Royal Palace whereof some poor remainders are yet to be seen then called Pertenna now a small part of it called vulgarly Bederna a very easy mistake if we consider that the Brittish Pronounce P. for B. and T. like D. situate near Christs Church in Curia Regis or in the Kings Court on the one hand and extending it self near to St. Helens Church upon the walls now demolished on the other hand Although their silence alone to my former demand at least of so many whom I have seen that have written upon this Subject be a sufficient conviction of them and a sufficient vindication of us yet for further manifestation of the truth Let us consider first that if we compare the ages and originals of the Roman and Britannique Churches we shall find that the Britannique is the more ancient and Elder Sister to the Roman it self The Britannique Church being planted by Ioseph of Arimathea in the raign of Tiberius Caesar where as it is confessed that Saint Peter came not to Rome to lay the foundation of that Church untill the second year of Claudius secundo Claudii anno in Italiam venit So if we look to the beginning according to the direction of the Councel of Ephesus the Britannique Church in its first original was free from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and Court of Rome where there was neither Bishop nor Court nor Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction at that day Secondly that it continued free in ensuing ages appears evidently by that opposition which the Church of Britain maintained against the Church of Rome siding with the Eastern Churches about the question of those times concerning the observation of Easter and the administration of Baptisme wherein Austine about the six hundreth year laboured to conform them but in vain Is it credible that the whole Brittish and Scottish Church should so unanimously have dissented from Rome for many hundred years together if they had been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop as of their lawfull Patriarch or that the Bishop of Rome in all that time should never so much as question them for it if they had been his Subjects Even then when Pope Victor durst attempt to deny or withdraw his communion from all the Asiatick Churches about the same businesse Neither were the Brittish Churches at last conformed to Rome by any Patriarchall power but by many conferences by the necessity of their civill affaires and by long tract of time some sooner some later A long tract of time indeed when some in the most Septentrionall parts of these Provinces were not reduced until a little before the late reformation Thirdly among the principal priviledges of patriarchall power is the right of ordination That all Metropolitans at least should either be ordained by the Patriarch or by License from the Patriarch This appears clearly in the dispute between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Cyprian Bishops But where the Bishops were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 independent upon not subject unto any forrain Prelate there they ordained at their own pleasures needed no License Such were our British Primates ordained alwaies or ordinarily at Rome according to the Cyprian priviledges creating new Bishopricks ordaining new Bishops at their own pleasures without giving any account to Rome So we read of St. Telaus who had been driven out of his own Country by an Epidemical sicknesse for a long time that at his return he consecrated and ordained Bishops as he thought fit That he made one Hismael Bishop of St. Davids And in like manner advanced many other men of the same order to the same degree sending them throughout the country and dividing the parishes for the best accommodation of the Clergy and of the People And if there were no other proofe of our exemption but onely the small number of the Bishops that were ordained by all the succeeding Popes for about the first three hundred years untill the death of Marcellinus It were sufficient to shew that the Bishops of Rome in those daies had little or nothing to do out of their owne Province and that their jurisdiction extended nothing near so far as Britain Saint Peter Ordained but three in his supposed five and twenty years that is Linus and Cletus ut sacerdotale Ministerium Romano populo advenis benè sentientibus exhiberent and Clement to whom he bequeathed his Episcopal Chair Linus but eleven Clement but fifteen Anacletus but six Evaristus but five Alexander but five Sixtus but four c. These were few enough for their own Province and none to
Command or permission And after permission onely by authority of the King and not by authority of the Pope to shun confusion and mixture of Jurisdictions 10. Neither the King nor his Realm nor his Officers can be excommunicated or interdicted by the Pope nor his Subjects absolved from their Oath of Allegiance 11. The Pope cannot impose Pensions in France upon any benefices having cure of soules nor upon any others but according to the Canons according to the expresse condition of the resignation or ad redimendum vexationem 12 All Bulls and Missives which come from Rome to France are to be seen and visited to try if there be nothing in them prejudicial in any manner to the estate and liberties of the Church of France or to the Royal authority 13 It is lawful to appeal from the Pope to a future Councel 14 Ecclesiastical persons may be convented judged and sentenced before a secular Judge for the first grievous or enormious crime or for lesser offences after a relapse which renders them incorrigible in the eye of the Law 15. All the Prelates of France are obliged to swear feaâ—ty to the King and to receive from him their investituâ—es for their fees and manours 16. The Courts of Parliament in case of appeales as from abuse have right and power to declare null void and to revoke the Popes Bulls and Excommunications and to forbid the execution of them when they are found contrary to sacred decrees the liberties of the French Church or the prerogative Royal. 17. Generall Councels are above the Pope and may depose him and put another in his place and take cognisance of appeals from the Pope 18. All Bishops have their power immediately from Christ not from the Pope and are equally successours of Saint Peter and the other Apostles and Vicars of Christ. 19. Provisions reservations expectative graces c. have no place in France 20. The Pope cannot exempt any Church Monastery or Ecclesiastical body from the Jurisdiction of their Ordinary nor erect Bishopricks into Archbishopricks nor unite them nor divide them without the Kings Licence 21. All those are not hereticks excommunicated or damned who differ in some things from the doctrine of the Pope who appeal from his decrees and hinder the execution of the ordinances of him or his Legates These are part of the liberties of the Gallicane Church The ancient British Church needed no such particular priviledges since they never knew any forreign Jurisdiction The English British Church which succeeded them in time in place and partly in their members and holy orders ought to have injoyed the same freedom and exemption But in the daies of the Saxon Danish and Norman Kings the Popes did by degrees insinuate themselves into the mesnagery of Ecclesiastical affaires in England Yet for many ages the English Church injoyed all these Gallicane priviledges without any remarkable interruption from the Roman Court. As in truth they do of right by the Law of nature belong to all Sovereign Princes in their own Dominions Otherwise Kingdomes should be destitute of necessary remedies for their own conservation And in later ages when the Popes having thrust in their heads did strive to draw in their whole bodies after the whole Kingdome opposed them and made Lawes against their several grosse intrusions as we have formerly seen in this discourse And never quitted these English as well as Gallicane liberties untill the Reformation But perhaps we may find more loyalty and obedience to the Court of Rome in the Catholick King Not at all Whatsoever power King Henry or any of his Successours did ever assume to themselves in England as the Political Heads of the Church the same and much more doth the Catholique King not onely pretend unto but exercise and put in practice in his Kingdome of Sicily both by himself by his Delegates whom he substitutes with the same authority to judge and punish all Ecclesiastical crimes to excommunicate and absolve all Ecclesiastical persons Lay-men Monks Clerks Abbats Bishops Archbishops yea and even the Cardinals themselves which inhabit in Sicily He suffers no appeals to Rome He admits no Nuncio's from Rome Atque demum respâ—ctâ— Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis neque ipsam Apostolicam sedem recognoscere hâ—bâ—re superiorem nisi in casu praevenâ—ionis And to conclude he acknowledgeth not any superiority of the Sâ—e of Rome it sâ—lf but onely in case of prevention What saith Baronius to this He complains bitterly that praetensa Apostolica authoritate contra Apostolicam ipsam sedem grande piaculum perpetratur c. Vpon pretence of Apostolique authority a grievous offence is committed against the Apostolick See the power whereof is weaknâ—d in the Kingdome of Sicily the authority thereof abrogated the Iurisdiction wronged the Ecclesiastical Lawes violated and the rights of the Church dissipated And a little after he declaimes yet higher Quid in ad ista dixeris lector What wilt thou say to this Reader but that under the name of Monarchy besides that one Monarch which all the faithful have ever acknâ—wledged as the onely visible Head in the Church Another head it risen up and brought into the Kingdome of Sicily for a Monster and a prodigy c. But for this liberty which he took the King of Spain fairly and quietly without taking any notice of his Cardinalitian dignity caused his books to be burned publickly It will be objected That the King of Spain challengeth this power in Sicily not by his Regal authority as a Sovereign Prince but by the Bull of Vrbanus the second who constituted Roger Earl of Sicily and his heires his Legates à latere in that Kingdome whereby all succeeding Princes do challenge to be Legati nati with power to substitute others and qualifie them with the same authority But first if the Papacy be by Divine right what power hath any particular Pope to transfer so great a part of his office and authority from his Successours for ever unto a Lay-man and his heires by way of inheritance If every Pope should do as much for another Kingdom as Vrbanus did for Sicily the Court of Rome would quickly want imployment Secondly if the Bull of Vrbanus the second was so available to the succeeding Kings of Sicily which yet is disputed whether it be authentick or not whether it be full or defective and mutilated why should not the Bull of Nicholas the second his predecessour granted to our Edward the Confessour and his Successours be as advantagious to the succeeding Kings of England why not much rather seeing that they are thereby constituted or declared not Legates but Governours of the English Church in the Popes place or rather in Christs place seeing that without all doubt Sicily was a part of the Popes ancient Patriarchate but Britaigne was not And lastly seeing the situation of Sicily so much nearer to Rome renders the Sicilians more capable of receiving Justice from thence then the English
special Licence of the Senate Upon pain that the Lands so alienated should be sold and the money divided between the Common-Wealth the Magistrate executing the Law and the party prosecuting the processe Fourthly the Duke and the Senate had imprisoned an Abbat and a Canon for certain crimes whereof they stood convicted Paul the fifth resented these things very highly and commanded the Duke and Senate of Venice to abrogate these Lawes so prejudicial to the authority of the Pope to the rights of holy Church and to the priviledges of Ecclesiastical persons And to set their prisoners forthwith at liberty Or otherwise in case of disobedience he excommunicated the Duke and Senate and all their partakers And subjected the City of Venice and all the Dominions thereunto belonging to an interdict And moreover declared all the Lands and goods which either the City of Venice or any of the persons excommunicated did hold of the Church to be forfeited And lastly commanded all Ecclesiastical persons high and low upon their obedience to publish that Bull and to forbear to celebrate all divine offices according to the Interdict upon pains contained therein as also of suspension sequestration deprivation and incapacity to hold any Ecclesiastical preferments for the future But what did the Venetians whilest Paul the fifth thundered against them in this manner They maintained their Lawes they detained their prisoners They protested publickly before God and the world against the Popes Bull as unjust and void made withont reason against the Scriptures and the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the Canons of the Church to the high prejudice of the secular power with grievous and universal scandal They commanded all the Clergy within their Dominions to celebrate divine offices duly notwithstanding the Popes interdict And at the same time they published and licensed sundry other writings tending to the lessening of the Papal greatnesse and Jurisdiction of the Roman Court Sundry of which books were condemned by the Inquisition as containing in them many â—ings temerarious calumnious scandalous seditious schismaticall heretical and the reading and keeping of them was prohibited under pain of excommunication During this contestation the Duke of Venice died And the Pope prohibited the Venetians to proceed to the election of a new Duke The Senate notwithstanding the Popes Injunction or Inhibition proceed to the election The people are unanimous and resolute to defend their just liberties The Clergy celebrate divine Offices duly notwithstanding the Popes interdict Only one order with some few others adhered to the Pope and for their labour were banished out of the Venetian City and Territories The Pope called home his Legate from Venice The Venetians revoked their Ambassadours ordinary and extraordinary from Rome The Pope incited the King of Spain to make war against the Republick to reduce them to the obedience of the Church And the Venetians being aided by their Roman Catholick allies armed themselves for their own defence It is not unworthy of our observation what was the doctrine of the Venetian Preachers and Writers in those daies as it is summed up by an eye-witnesse and a great Actour in those affaires That God had constituted two Governments in the world the one spiritual the other temporal either of them Sovereign in their kind and independent the one upon the other That the care of the spiritual was committed to the Apostles and their Successours Not to Saint Peter as a single Apostle and his Successours alone either at Antioch or at Rome as if all the rest were but Delegates for term of life wherein they agreed justly with us that as each particular Bishop is the respective Head of his proper Church So Episcopacy or Saint Cyprian's unus Episcopatus the conjoynt body of Bishops is the Ecclesiastical head of the militant Church That the care of the temporal Government is committed to Sovereign Princes That these two cannot intrude the one into the office of the other That the Pope hath no power to aâ—null the Lawes of Princes in temporall things nor to deprive them of their Estates nor to free their Subjects from their allegiance That the attempt to depose Kings was but 520 years old contrary to Scriptures contrary to the examples of Christ and of the Saints That to teach that in case of controversie between the Pope and a Prince it is lawful to persecute him by treachery or force Or that his rebellious Subjects may purchase by it remission of sins is a seditious and sacrilegious doctrine That the exemption of Ecclesiastical persons and their goods from the secular power is not from the Law of God but from the piety of Princes sometimes more sometimes lesse according to the exigence of affairâ—s That Papal exemptions of the Clergy are in some places not received at all in other places but received in part And that they have no efficacy or validity further then they are received That notwithstanding any exemption Sovereigns have power over their persons and goods whensoever the necessity of the Common-wealth requires it That if any exemption whatsoever be abused to the disturbance of the publick tranquillity the Prince is obliged to proviâ—e remedy for it That the Pope ought not to hold himself infallible nor promise himself such divine assistance That the authority to bind and loose is to be understood clave non errante That when the Pope hath censured or excommunicated a Prince the Doctours may lawfully examine whether his key have erred or not And when the Prince is certified that the Censure against him or his Subjects is invalid he may and ought for the preservation of publick peace to hinder the execution thereof preserving his Relâ—gion and convenient reverence to the Church That the excommunication of a multitude or a Prince that commands much people is pernicious and sacrilegious That the new name of blind obedience lately invented was unknown to the ancient Church and to all good Theologians destroyes the essence of virtue which is to work by certain knowledge and election exposeth to danger of offending God excuseth not the errours of a spiritual Prince and was apt to raise sedition as the experience of the last fourty years had manifested What conclusion would have followed from these premisses if they had been thoroughly pursued it were no difficult matter to determine It may perhaps be objected That the Venetian State had these priviledges granted to them by the Popes and Court of Rome And it is thus far true That they had five Bulls Two of Sixtus the fourth one of Innocent the eighth one of Alexander the sixth and the last of Paul the third But it is as true that none of these Bulls concerned any of the matters in debate but only the punishment of delinquent Clergy-men It hath been an old subtlety of the Popes that when the Emperours or Councels had granted any Ecclesiastical priviledge or honour to any person or Society which it was not
by King Iames in his triplici modo triplex cunâ—us print an 1609. p. 125. and Ireland Councel book of Ireland 32 33 34. of Henry 8th The pretended Crimes of Hen. 8. no blemish to the Reformation Holins in Hen. 8. p. 923. Hall 22. H. 8. p. 199. Our Lawes are not cruel against Roman Catholicks Apol. P. 153 In Artic. 37. p. 419 420 c. Though the first separaters were Schismaticks we are free Aug. Epist. 162. Psal. 19. 12. Protestants no authors of the separation from the Church of Rome Mr. Knot Inf. num p. 534. Bulla Pauli 3. apud Sander de Schism l. 1. p. 109. Eminent persons have great influence without any Iurisdictions The dignity of the Apostolical Churchâ—s â—â—de praeser advers haeres L. 4. Epis. 8. Novel 131. c. 3. et 4. It is no marvel that the Pope winded himself into England by degrees Mat. Paâ— an 1246. No Saxon English or Brittish King ever made any obliging submission to the Pope Bedâ—l 1. c. 25. Bed l. 1. ch 26. The Popes pâ—wer in England was of courtesy Wilfride the first great Appâ—llant Spâ—lm conc an 705. De elâ—ct polest c. 4. significasti c. Bar. An. 1102. nu 8. 〈◊〉 1. de Gest. Paul Angloâ— Hoved. in Hen. 2. Malm. ibid. Math. Par. an 1164. Rog. Hoved. in Hen. 2. Legations as rare as appeals Spelm. conc an 78. Saxon Kings made Ecclesiastical Laws Chap. 15. Chap. 5. Spelm. conc An. 1066. An old Artifice of the Roman Bishops Norman Kings injoyed the same power Cap. quon de Appâ—â—pr 15. R. 2. c. 64 H. 4. c. 12. 2. H. 4. c. 3 2. H 4. c. 4. 9. H. 6. c. 11. Coâ—k Râ—port Cawdries case Canon law of no more force in England then as it was received 20. H. 3. c. 9. 4. E. 1. c. 5. Bigamy 2. R. 2. c. 6. Aedmer in initio Placit an 1. H. 7. Pl. an 1. H 7. Pl. an 32. et 34. E. 1. Ant. Brit. 279. The statute of Mortmain justified Exod. 36. 6. 〈…〉 Nicet l. 7. Consid. p. 49 Oratio ad Paul 5. pro Rep. Veneta Mat. Paâ— an 1164. 35. E. 1. Statute of Carlile Malm. de Gest. Pont. Aug. p. 257. Id. l. 2. p. 45. p. 242. Id. l. 1. p. 204. Articuli cleri 25. E. 3. 25. E. 3. 16. R. 2. C. 5. 27. E. 3. c. 1. Act. and. mon. Pontif. veâ—us Pontif. novum Ex Regist. Craâ—m P. 4. Hall in Henrico 8. fol. 206. Occh. pâ—rt 2. c. 22. de fâ—ill reâ—udic The Soveraignty of our Kings in Ecclesiastical causes over Ecclesiastical persons Antiqu. Brit. p. 325. King Henry 8. did no more then his predecessours The judgment of our English Lawyers Fitzherb Natu. brev 44. Lord Cook Cawdries â—ase The true differ Part 2. Cyp. de unit Ecclesiae Conc. Eph. in Epist. Synod ad Nâ—stor Ambr. et alij Bell de Pont. l. 4. â— C. 22. The supremacy in the whole Colledge of the Apostlâ—s Act. 1. Act. 6. â—ct 8. st 1â— Act. 11. Act. 11. Act 15. The other Apostles had Successors as well as S. Peter Why the Bishop of Rome S. Peters succâ—ssour rather then of Antioch Plat. in vita Sti. Peâ—ri The highest constitution of the Apostles exceeded not natâ—onal Primats Can. Apost 33. How some Primates came to be more respected in the Church then others Either by custom Con. Nic. Or from the Grandeur of the City Conc Chal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Or by decrees of Councels Or by Edicts of Princes Many Prâ—mats subject to none of the five great Patriarchs Ruff. hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. The case between the Patriarch of Antioch and Cyprian Bishops Conc. Ephes. part 1. Act. 7. Greg. L. 1. Ep. 24. The case of the Cyprian Bishops applyed The proof in this cause ought to rest upon our adversaries The Brittannique Church ancienter then the Roman Gild. de eâ—id et conqâ— Brit. Plat in vita Sancti Petri. Bar. an 44. The Brittannique Churches sided with the Eastern against the Roman British Bishops ordained at home Reg. Land apud Vsh. dâ—prim Eccl. Brit. p. 56. Plat. The answer of Dionothus Spelm. Conc. An. 601. Confirme by two British Synods Spel. eon an 601. Galt mon. l. 2. c. 12. Beda omnes alii Resp. Greg. ad 8. quest Bed l. 2. c. 2. Ant. Brit p. 48. Malm. prol ad lib. de gest pont Aug. Glos. juris C. Cleros dist 21. Soveraign Princes have power to alter whatsoever is of humane institution in Ecclesiastical discipline Append. de Schism Art 4. p. 526. Suar. l. 3. de prim summi Pontificis cap. 1. num 4. Morl. in Emp. jur p. 1. tit 2. Citati à Sanc. claâ— in Art 37. Append. de Schism p. 527. P. 528. Protestants in their reformation have altered no Articles of Religion nor sacred rites nor violated Charity p. 533. p. 528. p. 530. Augustine Nor swerved from the Law of nature or positive Lawes of God Ex Archivis Turris Londinensis citat author Antiquit. Acad. Cantab In cases doubtful we may not disobey the King and the Lawes Exod. 1. 17. 1 Sam. 22. 17. August Unjust commands may be justly obeyed Prâ—nces are obliged to protect their subjects from the â—yranny of Ecclesiastical Judges Paâ—s lait c. Citati a Sancta Clara in Art 37. p. 420. 421. Sancta Clara p. 146. 417. Kings may exercise exernal acts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by fit delegates The Emperours of old did the same Novel 83. Lib. 5. ca. pit Popes convented imprisâ—ned deposed by Emperouâ—s Platin. in Grâ—g 6. Plat. in Bon. 1. Plat. in Sym. P. 425. An. 1110 The Councel of Towers allowes to withdraw obedience from the Pope in certain cases Conc. Turon Râ—sp ad Art 3. Resp. ad Art 4. Resp. ad Art 8. In tract de potest Papae et Imperat Princes may reform new Canâ—ns by old Part. 2. Act. 6. C. 7. de resol fid l. 1. C. 8. P. 152. Patriaâ—â—hal power subject to Impâ—rial Lib. 2. Ep. 61. Emperours have changed Patriarchaâ—s Conc. Const can 3. Conc. Chalc. Can. 8. By their authority Novel 11. et Novel 131. English Kings as Soveraign â—s the Emperouâ—s Math. Paris Two sorts of grounds for sustraction of obedience Our first grouâ—d Chemnit Exa Conc. Fred. Mant. Dist. 100. C. 2. In Hâ—n 1. an 1103. Ant. Brit. pag. 326. Math. Paris an 1237. Math. Par in H. 3. an 1253. Idem An. 1254. Idem An. 1257. Id. An. 1258. Plowmans tale and else where Our second ground Episo Eleiensis Plat. in Greg. 7. Larg Exam p. 18. Admon to the Nobility by Card. Allen. 1. 8. Exam. Cathol p. 34. Math. Paris an 1244. Idem an 1253. Ro. Houed Annal. fol. 303. Ep. Card. Bell. ad G. Blackw Archpr. Supplic of souls p. 296. Hoveden Annal. p. 292. Idem Plat. in pasch 2. Math. Paris an 1212. Math. Paris an 1253. Hoops ad saecul 14. c. 5. Citat Sanct. Clara. Math. Paris in H. 3. An. 1245. Bern. L. 3. de consideratione The
Hosius proposed in the Occidental Councel of Sardis in favour of the See of Rome Doth it please you that we should honour the memory of St. Peter Or from the more powerfull principallity of the City which is alledged by the Councel of Chalcedon as a reason of the greatnesse both of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople because they were the seats of the Emperours Secondly the Canons of the Fathers either without custome or against custome Thus the Bishop of Hierusalem an Apostolical See was raised above the Bishop of Cesarea an Imperial City notwithstanding the contrary custome Thus Constantinople because it was newly made the seat of the Empire was equalled to an Apostolical See that is Rome and preferred before all the rest by the general Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon notwithstanding the opposition of the Bishop of Rome by his Legats who grieved the more to see Thracia which he conceived to belong to his own Jurisdiction to be annexed to a rival See Lastly the Edicts of Soveraign Princes who out of favour either to the place of their Birth or of their residence or of their own foundation or forthe Weal-publick and better accomodation of their subjects have enlarged or restrain 〈◊〉 Patriarchates within their own Territories and raised up new Primats or Patriarchs as they thought fit But of this more in my next conclusion Fifthly notwithstanding the preheminence of the five great Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hiâ—rusalem and their great power and authority in the Church especially in general Councels yet there were many other Protarchs or Patriarchs who had no dependance upon them at all out of Councel nor ought them any obedience but onely a precedence and honourable respect Ruffinus a Priest of the Romane Church who lived not long after the councel of Nice And one who understood the ancient proper bounds of the Romane Patriarchate as well as any man doth limit it to the Suburbicary Churches that is a part of Italy and three Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica Africk had a Primate of their own at Carthage the rest of Italy at Millaine France at Arles or Lions Germany at Vienna Brittaine was removed far enough out of this account But this appears most clearly in the case between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Cyprian Bishops sentenced in the general Councel of Ephesus The Patriarch of Antioch challenged the ordination of the Cyprian Bishops and consequently a Patriarchal Jurisdiction over them for all other Rights do follow the right of ordination They denied both his right of ordination and jurisdiction The difference was heard The witnesses were examined for matter of fact And a sentence was given not onely in favour of the Cyprian Bishops but of all others which were in the same condition Among which number were our Brittannique Churches as shall evidently appear in this ensuing discourse But first let us listen to the words of the Councel Since common diseases do need greater remedies because they bring greater damage If it be not the ancient custome that the Bishops of Antioch ordain in Cyprus as the Councel is sufficiently satisfied The Cyprian Praelates shall hold their rights untouched and unviolated according to the Canons of the holy Fathers and the ancient custome ordaining their own Bishops And let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces That no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his predecessors If any do occupy another Province or subject it by force let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not sleighted nor pride creep into the Church under the praetext of worldly power lest by little and little that liberty be lost which Christ purchased for us with his blood Therefore it hath pleased the Holy Synod that every Province injoy its rights and customs unviolated which it had from the beginning These words from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are twice repeated It is no marvel if some addicted to the interest of Rome have gone about by Slight of hand but very unsuccessefully to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of the Councel If the Fathers in that Holy and oecumenical Councel were so tender and sensible of pride creeping into the Church in those daies and of the danger to lose their Christian liberty in the case of the Bishop of Antioch who neither pretended Divine right nor universal Jurisdiction nor superiority above Councels what would they not have said or done in this present case of the Bishop of Rome who challengeth not onely the right of ordaining but the grace of ordination and Soveraign Jurisdiction not over Cyprus only but over the whole Christian world not from custom or Canons or edicts but from the institution of Christ who makes all the validity of the decrees of those oecumenical Councels which his Predecessours received and reverenced as the Gospell to depend upon his own confirmation To apply this home to the question The Generall Councel of Ephesus declared that no Bishop should occupie any Province which before that Councell and from the beginning had not been under the Jurisdiction of him or his Predecessours And that if any Patriarch usurped any Jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it for so it pleased not the Pope but the Holy Synod that every province should injoy its ancient rights pure and inviolate Now if it shall evidently appear that the Bishops of Rome never exercised any manner of Jurisdiction over the Britannique Churches from the beginning no nor yet before the general Councel of Ephesus nor for six hundred years after Christ that is untill they themselves had disowned their Patriarchal right when Pope Boniface the third who entred into the Roman See about three years after the death of Gregory the great obtained from Phocas an usurping Emperour to be universal Bishop that is to say an usurping Monarch over the Church which fell out so soon after the arrivall of Austin in England that there wanted time to have settled the Roman Patriarchate in Brittain though the Brittons had been as willing to receive it as they were averse from it and if no true general Councel since that time hath ever subjected Brittain unto the Roman Court Then the case is clear that Rome can pretend no right over Brittain without their own consents nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves Then the subsequent and violent usurpations of the Roman Bishops cannot render them Bonae fidei possessores lawfull owners but that they are alwaies bound to quit their incroachments and the Brittannique Churches and those who derive by succession from them are alwaies free to vindicate and reassume their ancient rights and priviledges In this controversy by law the burthen of the proof ought to rest upon them who affirm a right and
spare for Britain In the whole term of three hundred years there were few above two hundred Bishops Ordained at Rome Italy alone may brag well near of as many Bishops at one time as many succeeding Popes did ordain in all their ages Let them not tell us of the scarcity of Christians in those dayes The writings of Tertullian and Saint Cyprian and the Councels held within the time limited do evince the contrary No the first badge of their Patriarchal authority in Britain was sending of the Pall as the onely badge during the times of the Britons and Saxons And the first Pall that came into Britain was after six hundred years But this doth yet appear much more clearly from the answer of Dionothus the Reverend and learned Abbot of Bangor which according to the manner of those times was an University or Seminary of Learning and piety among the Britons and he the well deserving Rector of it made in his own name and in the name of the Britons when they pressed him to submit to the Romaen Bishop as his Patriarch that he knew no obedience due to him whom they called the Pope but the obedience of love And that under God they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerleon Observe first what strangers the Britons were to the Papacy That man whom you call the Pope Secondly that they acknowledged no subjection or subordination no obedience whatsoever due from them to Rome but onely the reciprocal duty of love that was just the same that Rome did owe to them Thirdly that under God that is immediatly without any Forrein Prelate or Patriarch intervening they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerleon as their onely Primate and Patriarch Which priviledge continued to the succeeding Bishops of that See for many ages afterwards saving that the Archiepiscopal Chair was removed from Caerleon to St. Davids in the Raign of King Arthur And lastly observe the time when this answer was made after the first six hundred years were expired So it is a full demonstrative convincing proof for the whole term prefixed But lest any man should cavil and say that Dionothus was but one man and that the body of the British Clergy might be of another mind that which followes strikes the question dead That Austin Saint Gregories Legate proposing three things to the Britons First that they should submit to the Roman Bishop Secondly that they should conforme to the customes of the Roman Province about the observation of Easter and the administration of Baptisme And Lastly that they should joyn with him in Preaching to the Saxons all the British Clergy assembled themselves together Bishops and Priests in two several Synods one after another to deliberate hereupon and after mature consideration they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms Insomuch as St. Austin was necessitated to return over the Seas to obtain his own consecration and after his return to consecrate the Saxon Bishops alone without the assistance of any other Bishops They refused indeed to their own cost twelve hundred innocent Monks of Bangor shortly after lost their lives for it Rome was ever builded in blood Howsoever these words quamvis Augustino prius mortuo have since been forged and inserted into venerable Bede to palliate the matter which are wanting in the Saxon Copy The concurring Testimonies of all our Historiographers witnessing the absolute and unanimous refusal of the Britons to submit to Rome and the matter of fact it self do confirm this for an undoubted truth beyond all exception So clear a truth it is that the British Churches for the first three hundred years neither ought nor paid any subjection to Rome Whence might well proceed that answer of Elutherius to King Lucius if that Epistle be not counterfeit when he desired him to send over a Copy of the Roman Lawes That he should chuse a Law Ecclesiastical out of holy writ by the Councel of his Kingdom that is principally of his Bishops for saith he you are the Vicar of Christ in your Kingdom The same in effect which is conteined in the Lawes of Edward the Confessor Hence it is that both our Histories and our Lawes do stile our Archbishops Priâ—ates which in the Language of the Primitive times signifies as much as Patriarchs And sometimes call them expresly by the very name of Patriarchs it self Hence Vrban the second intertained and welcomed Anselm our Archbishop of Canterbury into the Councel of Barre tanquam alterius orbis Papam as the Pope of another world Or as others relate the passage as the Apostle of another world and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced CHAP. VI. That the King and Church of England had both sufficient authority and sufficient grounds to withdraw their obedience from Rome and did it with due moderation SO from the persons who made the separation from the Lawes and Statutes of our Realm which warranted the separation and from the ancient Liberties and priviledges of the Britannick Churches I proceed to my fourth ground drawn from the Imperial prerogatives of our Soveraign Princes That though we should wave all the other advantages yet they had power to alter in the external discipline and regiment of the Church whatsoever was of humane institution for the benefit and advantage of the body politick Doctor Holden proposeth the case right by way of Objection But peradventure the Protestants will say that the King or supream Senate of every Kingdome or Common-Wealth have power to make Lawes and statutes by which either directly or at least indirectly as well the Clergy as the Laity of that Kingdom or Common-Wealth are bound to reject all forrain Iurisdiction superiority and dependance And that his Legislative power is essentially annexed to every Kingdom and Commonwealth seeing that otherwise they cannot prevent those dangers which may spring and issue from that fountain to their destruction and ruine The Protestants do say indeed without all peradventure upon that very ground which is alledged in the objection Neither do the Protestants want the suffrage of Roman Catholicks therein Because humane nature saith one cannot be destitute of necessary remedies to its own preservation And another To whom a Kingdome is granted of necessity all things are esteemed to be granted without which a Kingdome cannot be governed And a Kingdom cannot be governed unlesse the King enjoy this power even over Clerks c. Necessary remedies are no remedies unlesse they be just but worse then the disease And being just the Subject is obliged to active obedience But let us see what the Doctour pleads in answer to his own objection First he passeth by the native power of civil Soveraign Empire which ought not to have been omitted for therein consists the main force of the argument But as to the Ecclesiastical part he saith he could
imperandi innocentem subditum ordo serviendi The Prince may be unjust in his commands and yet the Subject innocent in his obedience Take the case at the worst it must be doubtful at the least the Popes Soveraignty and the Jurisdiction of the Roman Court being rejected by three parts of the Christian world and so unanimously shaken off by three Kingdoms And in such a case who is fittest to be Judge the Pope the People or the King Not the Pope he is the person accused And frustra expectatur cujuslibet authoritas contra seipsum It is in vain to expect that one should imploy his authority against himself Not the people would a Judge take it well that a Gaoler should detain the Prisoner from execution untill he were satisfied of the justice of his sentence Or a Pilot that he may not move his Rudder according to the alterable face of the heavens but at the discretion of the ordinary Marriners No whensoever any question hath been moved between any kingdom or Republick of what Communion soever and the Court of Rome concerning the liberties and priviledges of the one or the extortions and incroachments of the other they have evermore assumed the last Judicature to themselves as of right it doth belong unto them The Romanists themselves do acknowledge that Soveraign Princes by the Law of God and nature not only may but are in justice obliged to oppose the tyranny of Ecclesiastical Judges and to protect and free their subjects from their violence and oppression Parsons himself wondreth that any man should deny this power to Kings in their own kingdomes But we are fully satisfied and assured that that universal power which the Pope claimes by Divine right over all Christians and particularly over the Britannique Churches without their consents And much more that Jurisdiction which de facto he did or at least would have exercised there and lesse then which he would not go to the destruction of their natural and Christian liberties and priviledges was and is a tyrannical and oppressive yoak If all Christians were as well satisfied of the truth of this our assumption as we are this controversie were at an end And thus far all Roman Catholicks not interessed nor prepossessed with prejudice do accord fully with us that by whomsoever Papal power was given whether by Christ or his Apostles or the Fathers of the Church in succeeding ages it was given for edification not for destruction And that the Roman Court in later dayes hath sought to impose grievous oppressive and intolerable burthens upon their subjects which it is lawful for them to shake off without regarding their censure as we shall see in the next proposition But because all are not so well satisfied about the just extent of Papal authority and power we must search a little higher Secondly we do both agree that Soveraign Princes may by enabled and authorized either by concession or by prescription for time immemoriall perhaps it were more properly said by vertue of their Soveraign authority over the whole body politique whereof the Clergy are a part â—o exercise all external acts of Ecclesiastical coercive Jurisdiction by themselves or at least by fit delegates praecipiendo suis subditis Sacerdotibus ut excommunicent rebelles contumaces And this is asserted in the case of Abbesses which being women are lesse capable of any spiritual Jurisdiction The truth is that as all Ecclesiastical Courts and all Ecclesiastical coercive jurisdiction did flow at first either from the Bounty and goodnesse of Soveraign Princes to the Church or from their connivence or from the voluntary consent and free submission of Christians Volenti non fit injuria consent takes away errour I except alwayes that jurisdiction which is purely spiritual and an essential part of the power of the Keies whereof Emperours and Kings are not capable So whensoever the Weal-publick and the common safety of their people doth require it for advancement of publick peace and tranquillity and for the greater ease and convenience of the subject in general according to the Vicissitude and conversion of humane affairs and the change of Monarchies they may upon well grounded experience in a National Synod or Councel more advisedly retract what their predecessours had advisedly granted or permitted And alter the face and rules of the external discipline of the Church in all such things as are but of humane right when they become hurtful or impeditive of a greater good in which cases their subjects may with good conscience and are bound in duty to conforme themselves to their Lawes Otherwise Kingdoms and Societies should want necessary remedies for their own preservation which is granted by both parties to be an absurdity Weigh all the parts of Ecclesiastical discipline and consider what one there is which Christian Emperours of old did not either exercise by themselves or by their delegates or did not regulate by their Lawes or both concerning the priviledges and revenues of holy Church the calling of Councels the presiding in Councels the dissolving of Councels the confirming of Councels concerning holy Orders concerning the patronage of and nomination to Ecclesiastical benefices and dignities concerning the Jurisdiction the suspension deposition and ordering of Bishops and Priests and Monks and generally all Persons in holy orders concerning Appeales concerning Religion and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof concerning the Creeds or common Symbols of faith concerning Heresie Schisme Judaisme the suppression of Sects against Swearing Cursing Blaspheming Prophanenesse and Idolatry concerning Sacraments Sanctuaries Simony Marriages Divorces and generally all things which are of Ecclesiastical cognisance wherein he that desires satisfaction and particularly to see how the coercive power of Ecclesiastical Courts and Judges did flow from the gracious concessions of Christian Princes may if he be not too much possessed with prejudice resolve himself by reading the first Book of the Code the Authentiques or Novels of Iustinian the Emperour and the Capitulars of Charles the great and his successours Kings of France We have been requested said Iustinian by Menna the Archbishop of this City beloved of God and universal Patriarch to grant this priviledge to the most reverend Clerkes c. in pecuniary causes referring them first to the Bishop and if he could not compose or determine the difference then to the secular Judge And in criminal causes if the crime were civil to the civil Magistrate if Ecclesiastical to the Bishop By the Councel of our Bishops and Nobles said Charles the great we have Ordained Bishops throughout the Cities that is we have commanded and authorized it to be done And do decree to assemble a Synod every year that in our presence the Canonical decrees and Lawes of the Church may be restored I beseech you what did our King Henry and the Church of England more at the reformation It is true Soveraign Princes are not said properly to make Canons because they do not prescribe them
in their power to crosse Yet straightway their Bulls did flie abroad either of concession or confirmation or Delegation to make the world believe that nothing could be done without them But how or by what right did the Venetians claim these priviledges By virtue of any Papal Bulls No such thing But by the Law of nature as an essential right of Sovereignty and by a most ancient custome of 1200 years that is a thousand years before the first Bull was dated as appeareth by a letter of the Senate of Venice to the Venetian Commons their Subjects Secondly it may be urged further that the Venetians did not make a total and perpetual separation from Rome No more did England if by Rome we understand the Church of Rome First not total but onely in particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first â—ounders Which are the very words of our Canon Secondly not perpetual but onely temporary untill their errours be amended and abuses reformed But if by Rome be understood the Roman Court the case of Veâ—ice and England is much different They acknowledge themselves to be justly subject to the Roman Patriarch we do altogether deny his Jurisdiction over us The vicinity of Venice renders them capable of receiving Justice from Rome which the distance of England being so far divided by Seas and Mountains doth hinder us of Their interest invited them to a conjunction with Rome Ours is against it But yet they take care for their own security and indempâ—ity that the Papacy which they submitted unto should be toothlesse not able to bite them or injure them If that Papacy which they sought to have obtruded upon us had been such an one in probability they had not so quickly been turned out of doores Lastly it may be objected that the points in difference between Rome and us be many more then those which were in difference between Rome and Venice This indeed is most true But not much material More or lesse do not vary the kind or nature of any thing Whether their liberties or ours be of greater or lesser extent is impertinent to our question If Venice ought to enjoy their ancient liberties and customes then so ought England also If the Venetians ought to be the last Judges of their own pretensions what their ancient customes and liberties were then so ought we to be likewise Not the Pope and his conclave of Cardinals which if Venice would not endure we have much lâ—sse reason to endure it What Canons have been received with us and how far and where our shoe did wring us none knew so well as our selves The chiefest difference between our case and that of Venice seems to me to be this That we were put to an aâ—ter-game so were not they They preserved their rights and priviledges then in question intire from the usurpations of the Roman Court we were necessitated in part to retrive and vindicate ours Theirs was properly a Conservation Ours a Reformation They might thank the unanimity of their Subjects the loyalty of their Clergy and their nearer acquaintance with Rome for their advantage we might blame the Barons Wars and the contentions between the houses of York and Lancaster and a kind of superstitious veneration of that See occasioned by our distance and want of experimental knowledge for our disadvantage But to come to the Catastrophe of this businesse Both sides grew weary of the difference Christian Princes mediated a Peace especially the most Christian King The Venetians were contented to shake hands and be friends with the Court of Rome But without any reparation or submission or confession or so much as a request to be made on their parts They refused to abrogate any one of the Lawes complained of They refused though the Pope did presse it most instantly and the Cardinal Ioieuse did assure them that it would be more acceptable to his Holinesse then the conquest of a Kingdome to re-admit the banished persons into their City They refused to take an absolution from Rome Yea they were so far from it that when the Ambassadour intreated that the Duke might receive a benediction from him publickly in the Church both the Duke and the Senate did resolutely oppose it because it had some appearance of an absolution A man would have thought that this might have sufficed to have caught the Popes more wit then to have hazarded their reputation again so near home where they are so well known But it did not They adventured after this to make their spiritual weapons subservient to their temporal ends by excommunicating and interdicting the Duke of Parma and his Subjects with little better successe I expect that it should be alledged That all the Projects of France for a new Patriarchate and the memorials of Castile and the bleatings of Portugal c. were but personated shewes to terrifie Popes into their duties And in part I do believe it to be true But withal they must yeeld thus much unto me that it is for children to be terrified with grimaces or painted vizards which signifie nothingâ— To work upon wise men there must be probable and just grounds that such things as are pretended may be and will be effected We have said enough to shew that all Christian Nations do challenge this right to themselves to be the last Judges of their own liberties and priviledges CHAP. VIII That the Pope and the Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schisme I Am come now to my sixth and last proposition which brings the Schisme home to their own doores Wherein I endeavour to demonstrate that the Church of Rome or rather the Pope and the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schisme and almost all other Schisms in the Church First by seeking to usurpe an higher place and power in the body Ecclesiastical then of right is due unto them Secondly by separating both by their doctrines and censures three parts of the Christian world from their Communion and as much as in them lies from the communion of Christ. Thirdly by rebelling against general Councels Lastly by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical Succession except their own First they make the Church of Rome to be not onely the sister of all other Patriarchal Churches and the Mother of many Churches but to be the Lady and Mistris of all Churches To be not onely a prime stone in the building but the very foundation to be not onely a respective foundation in relation to this or that time and place as all the Apostles and all Apostolical Churches were and all good Pastours and all orthodox Churches are but to be an absolute foundation for all persons in all places at all times which is proper to Christ alone Other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid even Iesus Christ. They hold it not enough for