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
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
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
same It seemeth to be hard measure to destroy men for meer speculative opinions which it may be are not in their own power so long as there is neither blasphemy nor sedition in the case It is often easier to secure a mans actions then to cure the errors of his judgment In the next place he chargeth me with contradicting of my self because I say the Emperors and other Princes of the Roman communion have done the same things in effect with the King of England and in another place I confess that the Kings of England have abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome but the Emperors have not This he faith is to give myself the lie Certainly he was in some heat or passion when this word of disgrace dropped from his penne as commonly disputers are when they finde that they have gotten the wrong end of the staff If he had advisedly read over my assertion it is this that either they have done the same thing in effect or at least have pleaded for it If either part of the disjunction be true my assertion is a truth and no contradiction much less a lie which implyeth that it is both against truth and against conscience Now I have shewed clearly in the vindication that they have not only pleaded it but sworn it that they would maintain the Rites Liberties and Customes of the Empire inviolated against the Pope and the Court of Rome And that they have protested that they would not have his Holiness to be ignorant that they neither could nor would indure his intollerable pressures any longer but would vindicate themselves Further to doe the same thing in effect doth not signifie to doe the same individuall action nor alwaies the same specificall action but only that which argueth the same power or implyeth the same consequences If an ordinary doe suspend a Clerke from his Benefice or degrade him from his holy Orders so long as the question is only whether he be under Jurisdiction of the ordinary it is all one in effect whilest the one proveth the intention as well as the other If a theefe stâ—ale a shilling or a pound it is not the same thing in effect because the Theef pretendeth no right to what he taketh But if a Magistrate impose a tribute of a shilling or a pound where the question is only whether he have power to impose tribute or not it is all one in effect for his title is as just to the one as to the other and as he imposeth a shilling to day so he may if he have occasion impose a pound to morrow The whole and all the parts are the same in effect The Emperors have done all the particular Acts which the Kings of England have done concerning Patronage Investitures Legislation Reformation Legates Appeals Tenths first Fruits c. And moreover have deposed Popes which the Kings of England never attempted to doe though they have not made one generall Act of abolition Why is not this the same in effect He that satisfieth a debt in Pistols and he who satisfieth it in cracked Groats doe both the same thing in effect To conclude they who assume the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Priviledges in all differences between them and the Court of Rome doe the same thing in effect whether the respective Priviledges of the one or the other be more or less But the Emperors and the Kings of England did assume to themselves the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Priviledges in all differences between them and the Court of Rome And therefore though the one might take or mistake himself to be within the old Roman Patriarchate which the other was not or whatsoever other differences there might be in the extent of their Liberties or in their claims yet they did the same thing in effect The only difference between the Emperors and Henry the eight is this that they denyed the Papacy in parcells and he denyed it in gross They denyed his Sovereign Legislative power they denyed his Patronage of Churches they denyed his Investitures of Bishops they denyed his Superiority above generall Councells they denyed his Tenths and first Fruits and Pardons and Indulgences and Dispensations So they pulled away his stolen feathers one by one and Henry the eighth uncased him all at once but except some Patriarchall Rites which Britain never acknowledged which are no parts of the Papacy they left him as naked the one as the other This I might well call the same thing in effect Now are we come to take a view of his witnesses to try if he be more fortunate in offending then he is in defending But truly they are such that their very names and their well known acts do sufficiently confute all his evidence The first is Constantine the great who professed openly that he could not judg of Bishops No such thing He said only that they could not be judged of all men When all men have imperial power his argument will have more force in it but nothing to his purpose The only question between us is about the Papacy and his proof makes only for the priviledges of Episcopacy Whatsoever Constantine did at this time was a meer prudentiall act He had convocated the Bishops together against Arrius and instead of endeavoring to suppress the common enemie they fell into quarrels and mutuall complaints one against another about businesses of no moment Constantine seeing quod per hujusmodi jurgia causa summi negocii frustraretur that the main business against Arrius was hindred by these unreasonable brawlings and ne innotesceret ulli hominum c. to prevent scandall that the faults and contentions of Priests might not appear to the world he suppressed them and referred them to the judgment of God This was a more prudent course and more conducible at that time to the advantage of Christian Religion then to have examined every scandalous accusation of one against another Yet even in this there appeareth sufficient proof of Constantines judiciary power over the Bishops First they did all offer their mutuall accusations one of another to him as to their proper Judge Secondly he commanded them all to put their accusations in writing and to deliver them to his hands Thirdly he bound them all up in a bundell and sealed them Fourthly he made them friends and then burned them in their presence and imposed upon them a perpetuall amnesty or law of forgetfullness All these were judiciary Acts. It is true Constantine honored Bishops very much he made them his companions in his voyages his fellow commoners at his table he cast his Cloak over their faults But this was not for want of judiciary power over them but because they were consecrated to God and he beleeved that in thus doing God would become propitious to him But at other times the case is as clear as the Sun He
A Replication TO THE BISHOP of CHALCEDON HIS Survey of the Vindication OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND FROM Criminous Schism Clearing the English Laws from the aspertion of Cruelty With an Appendix in answer to the exceptions of S. W. By the right Reverend JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. and Lord Bishop of Derry LONDON Printed by K. H. for Iohn Crook at the signe of the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1656. To the Christian Reader CHristian Reader of what Communion soever thou beest so thou beest within the Communion of the oecumenicall Church either in act or in desire I offer this second Treatise of Schism to thy serious view and unpartiall Iudgment The former was a Vindication of the Church of England this later is a Vindication of my self or rather both are Vindications of both In vindicating the Church then I did vindicate my self And in vindicating my self now I doe vindicate the Church What I have performed I doe not say I dare not judg the most moderate men are scarcely competent judges of their own works No man can justly blame me for honouring my spiritual Mother the Church of England in whose wombe I was conceived at whose brests I was nourished and in whose bosome I hope to die Bees by the instict of nature doe love their hives and Birds their nests But God is my witness that according to my uttermost talent and poor understanding I have endeavored to set down the naked truth impartially without either favor or prejudice the two capital enemies of right judgment The one of which like a fals mirror doth represent things fairer and straighter then they are the other like the tongue infected with choler makes the sweetest meats to taste bitter My desire hath been to have truth for my chiefest friend and no enemy but error If I have had any byasse it hath been desire of peace which our common Saviour left as a Legacy to his Church that I might live to see the re-union of Christendome for which I shall alwaies bow the knees of my heart to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. It is not impossible but that this desire of unity may have produced some unwilling error of love but certainly I am most free from the willfull love of error In questions of an inferior natu re Christ regards a charitaable intention much more then a right opinion Howsoever it be I submit my self and my poor indeavors first to the judgment of the Catholick oecumenicall essentiall Church which if some of late daies have indeavored to hisse out of the Schools as a fancy I cannot help it From the beginning it was not so And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorace which for my part I have no reason in the World to suspect yet it is not impossible when the Romanists themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what â—his catholick Church or what their infallible Iudg is I doe implicitly and in the preparation of my minde submit my self to the true catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the Pillar of Truth And seeing my adherence is firmer to the infallible rule of Faith that is the holy Scriptures interpreted by the catholick Church then to mine own private judgment or opinions although I should unwittingly fall into an error yet this cordiall submission is an implicite retractation thereof and I am confident will be so accepted by t he Father of merâ—â—â—s both from me 〈…〉 and sincerely 〈…〉 â—th Likew◠〈…〉 reprâ—sentative 〈…〉 generall Councell or so generall as can be procured and untill then to the Church of England wherein I was baptized or to a nationall English Synod To the determination of all which and each of them respectively according to the distinct degrees of their authority I yeeld a conformity and compliance or at the least and to the lowest of them an acquiescence Finally I crave this favor from the courteous Reader that because the Surveier hath overseen almost all the principall proofs of the cause in question which I conceive not to be so clearly and candidly done he will take the pains to peruse the Vindication it self And then in the name of God let him follow the dictate of right reason For as that scale must needs settle down whereinto most weight is put so the minds cannot chuse but yeeld to the weight of perspicuous demonstration An Answer to R. C. the Bishop of Chalcedons preface I Examine not the impediments of R. C. his undertaking this survey Only I cannot but observe his complaint of extreme want of necessary Books having all his own notes by him and such store of excellent Libraries in Paris at his command then which no City in the World affords more few so good certainly the main disadvantage in this behalf lies on my side Neither will I meddle with his motives to undertake it I have known him long to have been a Person of great eminence among our English Roman Catholicks and doe esteem his undertaking to be an honour to the Treatise Bos lassus fortiùs pedem figit said a great Father The weary Oxe treadeth deeper Yet there is one thing which I cannot reconcile namely a fear least if the answer were longer deferred the poison of the said Treatise might spread further and become more incurable Yet with the same breath he tels us that I bring nothing new worth answering And in his answer to the first Chapter that no other English Minister for ought he knows hath hitherto dared to defend the Church of England from Schisme in any especiall Treatise Yes diverse he may be pleased to inform himself better at his leisure What is the Treatise so dangerous and infectious Is the way so unbeaten And yet nothing in it but what is triviall Nothing new that deserves an answer I hope to let him see the contrary He who disparageth the work which he intends to confute woundeth his own credit through his adversaries sides But it seemeth that by surveying over hastily he did quite oversee all our principall evidence and the chiefest firmaments of our cause I am sure he hath quite omitted them I shall make bold now then to put him in mind of it Hence he proceedeth to five observable points which he esteemeth so highly that he beleeveth they alone may serve for a full refutation of my Book Then he must have very favourable Judges His first point to be noted is this that Schisme is a substantiall division or a division in some substantiall part of the Church And that the substantiall parts of the Church are these three Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and Lawfull Ministery I confesse I am not acquainted with this language to make Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and lawfull Ministery which are no substances to be substantiall parts of any thing either Physicall or Metaphysicall He defineth the Church to be a Society can these be
is a Murtherer What will it avail a man to be a Catholick in the eie of the World and a Schismatick in the eie of God to be a Member of the visible Church and to be cast into utter darkness He is not a Iew who is one outwardly neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh But he is a Iew who is one inwardly and Circumcision is that of the heart So he is not a Catholick who is one outwardly but he who is a Catholick inwardly whose praise is not of men but of God Then I set down wherein the externall Communion of Catholicks doth consist in the same Creeds or Confessions of faith in the participation of the same Sacraments in the same Liturgies or divine Offices in the use of the same publick Rites and Ceremonies in the communicatory Letters and admission of the same Dâ—scipline These observations about the parts of the Catholick Communion are so innocent so indifferent and so unsubserviant to either party that I hoped they might pass without any censure But behold there is not one of them can escape an exception To the first part of Catholick communion in the same Creeds he takes two exceptions first That communion in faith is pretended a sufficient excuse from true Schism Fear it not no man dreameth that communion with the Church in her Creed doth acquit from Schism but not communicating with the Church in her Creed doth make both Schism and Heresie The having of faith doth not supplie the want of Charity but the want of one necessary requisite renders the having of another insufficient Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis malum ex quolibet defectu His second Exception is That true saving faith requireth not only a communion in the Creed but in all Gods words cleerly revealed to him and sufficiently proposed I answer What is necessary for this man at this time in this place is one thing what is necessary for all Christians at all times in all places is another thing Though all revealed truths be alike necessary to be beleeved when they are known yet all revealed truths are not alike necessary to be known And they who know them not are not obliged to communicate in the beleefe of them untill they know them So to beleeve them when they are revealed to us is a necessary duty of all Christians And yet the explicite beliefe of them is no necessary part of Christian communion He that holds fast the old Creed of the Church hath all things that are absolutely necessary in point of Faith Perhaps he thinks that the determination of the Roman Church is a sufficient proposall we know no such thing Let him first win the privilige and then enjoy it To the second and third parts of Catholick Communion he objects That it is not sufficient to participate in Catholick Sacraments unless it be done with Catholicks This is true How can they be parts of Catholick Communion if no Catholicks doe participate of them But here are two advertisements necessary the one that Sacraments purely administred and Sacraments corruptly administred so long as the abuses doe not destroy the essence are the same Sacraments As Baptisme administred in pure water and Baptisme administred with salt and spittle also is the same Baptisme The other that it is not any Church of one denomination whatsoever either Roman or other that either is the Catholick Church or is to judge under Christ who are true Catholicks There are many more Catholicks without the Roman Communion than within it Our Separatists in England having first laid their own drowsie conceits for infallable grounds that their Discipline is the Scepter of Christ that they alone are Zion and all other societies Babilon then they apply all the power and priviledges and prerogatives of the Church unto themselves So the Church of Rome having flattered it self into an opinion that she alone is the Catholick Church and all other Churches divided from her hereticall or schismaticall Conventicles though they be three or four times larger than her self presently laies hold on the keies of the Church opens and shuts le ts in and thrusts out makes Catholicks and unmakes Catholicks at her pleasure He tels us That the Communion of the Church doth not necessarily imply the same Rites and Ceremonies I know it right well The Queens Daughter was arraied in a Garment wrought about with divers colours No men have been so much too blame as the Church of Rome in obtruding indifferent Rites as necessary duties upon other Churches But yet the more harmony and uniformity that there is in Rites the greater is the Communion The Church is compared to an Army with banners What a disorderly Army would it be if every Souldier was left free to wear his own colours and to give his own words I know the Communion of the Church did not consist in communicatory Letters but they were both expressions and excellent helpes and adjuments of unity and antidotes against Schism What he saith now the third time of our communicating with Schismaticks hath been answered already Wherefore saith he since I. D. hath failed so many waies in defining Schism let us define it better And then he brings in his definition triumphantly True Schism is a voluntary division in some substantiall part of the true Church that is in some essentiall of Christian Religion Where lies the difference I call it a separation and he calles it a division I say culpable and he saith voluntary omnis culpa est voluntaria My expressions are more significant and emphaticall All the difference lies in these words in some substantiall part of the true Church Which for the form of expression is improper to make essentiall properties to be substantiall parts and for the matter is most untrue for there have been are and may be many Schismes which doe not concern any essentialls of Christian Religion I would borrow one word more with him why he calles it rather a division of the true Church than a division from the true Church I know some Roman Catholicks have doubted and suspended their judgements whether Schismaticks be still Members of the Catholick Church others have determined that they are And we are of the same minde that in part they doe remain still coupled and mortised to the Church that is in those things wherein they have made no separation ex ea parte in texturae compage detinentur in caetera scissi sunt And that in this respect the Catholick Church by their baptism doth beget Sonnes and Daughters to God And we think we have St. Austin for us in this also Vna est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur quicquid suum habet in Communionibus diversorum a sua unitate separatis per hoc quod suum in iis habet ipsa utique generat non illae This perhaps is contrary to R. C. his opinions howsoever we thank him for
assenting to the erecting of it And I aske how it was not legally established which was established by soveraign authority according to the direction of the Convocation with the confirmation of the Parliament What other legall establishment can there be in England By the Lawes of England a Bishop had but his single vote either in Parliament or Convocation Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops whether for not assenting or for other reasons will require further proof than his bare assertion This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Papacy in the reign of Henry the eighth He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament under King Charles Why should I add a notorious untruth as contrary to my conscience as to my affections I might have said oppressed I could not say suppressed The externall splendor was abated when the Baronies of the Bishops and their votes in Parliament were taken away but the Order was not extinguished So far from it that King Charles himself suffered as a Martyr for the English Church If his meaning be that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royall he cannot be so great a stranger in England as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity Yet he is pleased to stile it a dead Church and me the Advocate of a dead Church even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves or as the Sun is set when it is behinde a Cloud or as the Gold is destroyed when it is melting in the Furnace When I see a seed cast into the ground I doe not aske where is the greeness of the leaves where is the beauty of the flowers where is the sweetnes of the fruit but I expect all these in their due season Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe The rain is fallen the wind hath blown and the floods have beaton upon their Church but it is not fallen for it is founded upon a Rock The light is under a Bushell but it is not extinguished And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candlestick yet the Church of England is not dead whilest the Catholick Church survives Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution And though some of the Church doe suffer yet it is not for Religion but matters of State What can a man expect in knotty questions from them who are so much transported with prejudice as to deny those things which are obvious to every eie If it be but some that have suffered it is such a some as their Church could never shew wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed may read the Martyrology of London or the List of the Universities and from that paw guess at the proportion of the Lion But perhaps all this was for matters of State No our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State nor our Ecclesiasticall Revenues exposed to sale for matters of State The refusall of a schismaticall Covenant is no matter of State How many of the orthodox Clergy without pretence of any other delinquency have been beggered how many necessitated to turn Mechanicks or day-Laborers how many starved how many have had their hearts broken how many have been imprisoned how many banished from their native Soil and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World No man is so blinde as he that will not see His tenth Section is a summary or repetition of what he hath already said wherein I finde nothing of weight that is new but onely one authority out of St. Austin That Catholicks are every where and Hereticks every where but Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks different every where If by Catholicks he understand Roman Catholicks they are not every where not in Russia nor in Aethiopia and excepting some hand-fulls for the most part upon toleration not in any of the Eastern Churches The words of Saint Austin are these Vbicunque sunt isti illic Catholica sicut in Africa ubi vos non autem ubicunque Catholica est aut vos istis aut Heresis quaelibet earum Wheresoever they are there is the Catholick Church as in Africa where you are but wheresoever the Catholick Church is you are not nor any of those Heresies St. Austins scope is to shew that the Catholick Church is more diffused or rather universall than any Sect or all Sects put together If you please let this be the Touchstone between you and us But you will say that you are united every where and we are different every where Nothing less You are united in one pretended head which some of you acknowledge more some less We are united in the same Creed the same Sacraments and for the most part the same discipline Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place of the Novatians Arrians Patripassians Valentinians Patricians Apellites Marcionites Ophites all which condemned all others but themselves and thereby did separate themselves Schismatically from the Catholick Church as it is to be feared that you doe Our case is quite contrary we reform our selves but condemn no others CHAP. 3. Whether Protestants were Authors of the separation from Rome WE are now come from stating the Question to proofs where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the province which he hath undertaken To shew that Protestants were not the Authors of the Separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks I produced first the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point that the Bishop of Rome had no greater Jurisdiction within England conferred upon him by God in the Scripture than any other forrein Bishop Secondly the decrees of two of our nationall Synods Thirdly six or seven Statutes or Acts of Parliament Fourthly the attestation of the prime Roman Catholick Bishops and Clergy in their printed Books in their Epistles in their Sermons in their Speeches in their Institution Fiftly the unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome of England testified by Bishop Gardiner and of the Kingdome of Ireland proved out of the Councell Book Lastly the Popes own Book wherein he interdicted and excommunicated the whole Church of England before the reformation made by Protestants So as apparently we were chased away from them Heare the judgement of a Stranger This year the Pope brake the wise patience or rather dissimulation which for four years together he had used towards England And sent against the King a terrible thundring Bull such as never was used by his Predecessors nor imitated by his Successors It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is What doth he answer to all this Not one word And so I take my first ground pro confesse That Protestants were not Authors of the separation of the English
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
or limitations necessary in every reformation first that it be made advisedly upon well grounded experience Secondly that it be done in a Nationall Synod Thirdly that it be only in matters of humane right Fourthly that nothing be changed but that which is become hurtfull or impeditive of a greater good he leaves out three of these restrictions altogether and only mentions one that it be in matters of humane institution as if the rest were of no consideration He cannot chuse but know that by the Doctrine of their own Schools if a man doe vow any thing to God which afterwards is found to be hurtfull and impeditive of a greater good maketh his vow null and voyd and disobligeth him from performance of it If it be true in a vow to God it is more true in a promise made to man and he needeth no dispensation to retract it But let us follow his steps First whereas I alledge their own Authors to prove that to whom a Kingdome is granted all necessary power is granted without which a Kingdome cannot be governed he distinguisheth between the necessity of the Kingdome and the benefit of the Kingdome a King hath power to doe whatsoever is necessary for the government of his Kingdome but not whatsoever is for the benefit of his Kingdome To this I answer first That he confounds Power and the exercise of Power or the necessity of the one with the necessity of the other Power is the necessary qualification of a King But the act or exercise of that power may be free and sufficiently grounded not only upon the necessity but upon the benefit of the Kingdome A Legislative power is necessary to a King but this doth not imply that he cannot make a Law except only in cases of absolute necessity Power to administer an Oath or to commit a Malefactor is a necessary qualification of a Judg yet he may administer an Oath upon discretion or commit a man npon suspicion If a King or a Judg invested with such a power should misapply it or erre in the exercise of it he owes an account to God and the Prince from whom he received the power but the Subject is bound at least to passive obedience Now let him see his own mistake The question between us is whether a power to reform abuses and inconveniences be necessary to a King to which all his Subjects owe at least passive obedience He answers concerning the exercise of this power in what cases a King may lawfully use it but if the King mistake the case yet the Subject owes passive obedience Secondly I answer that there is a double necessity first a simple or absolute necessity Secondly a respective necessity secundum quid which we may call a necessity of convenience which is a true necessity and a sufficient ground of a Christian Law that is rather to make such a Law then to sustein such indignities or to run such extreme hazards or lose such great advantaages As it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things And of four things these were three to abstain from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled None of which things were necessary in themselves either necessitate medii or necessitate precepts But they were necessary to avoyd scandall and to gain advantage upon the Jews and to retein them in a good opinion of Christian Religion Saint Iames used the same argument to Saint Paul Thou seest Brother how many thousands of Iews there are which beleeve and they are all zealous of the Law c. If the advantage be but small it is not worth abrogating a Law or changing a received custome but if it be great Malo semel excusare quare secerim quam semper quare non secerim It is better to make one just apology why a man doth abrogate such a prejudicall custome then to be making dayly excuses why he doth not abrogate it Vivere non est vita sed valere To live is not to draw out a lingering breath but to injoy health So the health and convenience and good constitution of a Kingdome is more to be regarded then the bare miserable being of it Thirdly I answer that our Reformation in England was not only beneficiall and advantagious to the Kingdome but necessary to avoid intolerable extortions and grosse unjust and generall usurpations of all mens rights They found plainly that this forrein Jurisdiction did interfere with the Sovereign power The Oaths which Bishops were forced to take to the Pope were examined in Parliament and found to be plainly contradictory to their Oathes of Allegiance and repugnant to that duty which they did owe to generall Councels They found that they were dayly exposed to perill of Idolatry and in danger dayly to have new Articles of Faith obtruded upon them they see that the Pope had implicitly quitted their Patriarchall right and challenged a Sovereignty over the Church by Divine right Lastly they see that this forrein Jurisdiction was become not only uselesse but destructive to those ends for which Patriarchall authority was first instituted As the Hangings are fitted to the House so was the externall Regiment of the Church fitted and adopted to the then State of the Empire when these Ecclesiasticall dignities were first erected for the ease and benefit of the Subject to the end that no man should be necessitated to seek further for Ecclesiasticall Justice then he did for Civil nor to travell without the bounds of his own Province for a finall sentence Therefore wheresoever there was a Civil Metropolis there was placed an Ecclesiasticall Metropolitan also And where there was a Secular Protarch there was constituted an Ecclesiasticall Patriarch to avoid the confusion and clashing of Jurisdictions This is plain out of the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon that whereas some ambitious persons contrary to the Laws Ecclesiasticall had multiplied Metropoliticall Sees making two in one Province where there was but one mother City or one Civil Metropolis the Councell defined that no man should attempt any such thing for the future But those Cities which had been adorned with the name of Metropolis by the Edicts of Kings should only injoy that priviledge And more plainly by that of Anacletus cited by Gratian if we may credit him Provinces were divided long before the comming of Christ for the most part And afterwards that division was renued by the Apostles and Saint Clement our predecessor so that in the chief Cities of all Provinces where long since were primates of the Secular Law and the highest judiciary Power c. There the Divine and Ecclesiasticall Lawes commanded Patriarchs or Primates to be placed and to be which two though they be different in names yet retein the same sense This was well so long as the Empire continued in the same State and the Provinces
the Pope or his Office If Luther proceeded not in form of Law against the Pope it is no marveil I remember no process in Law that was between them He challenged only verbum informans not virgam reformantem Doe you think that if he or any other had cited the Pope to have appeared in Germanie or England he would have obeyed the Summons They might as well have called again yesterday Howsoever Luther's acts concern not us Their third objection is that we have quitted our lawfull Patriarch which argument he saith he will omit because we have spoken enough of that before Either I am mistaken or this is a fallacie of no cause for a cause The true cause why he omitteth it being not because we have spoken enough of it for he hath continually declined it but rather because he seeth that it is incompatible with that sovereignty and universality of Power which the Roman Bishops doe challenge at this day Let them lose the substance whilest they catch at the shadow But in the place of this he proposeth another objection which he calleth their most forcible argument against us which in brief is this No Church is to be left in which salvation is to be had but we confess that the Roman Church is a true Church in substance the true Church c. I cannot but observe what difference there is in the judgements of men for of all their objections I take this to be the weakest And so would he also if he would cease to confound the Catholick Church with a Catholick Church that is the universall Church with a particular Church and distinguish the essentialls of a Church from the corruptions of a Church and make a difference between a just reformation of our selves and a causless separation from others But be the argument what it will forcible or weak it hath been answered abundantly in this Treatise over and over again And therefore though he pleased I use his own expressions to say it often to repeat it often to inculcate it Yet I dare not abuse the patience of the Reader with so many needless tautologies He taxeth me for not answering some testimonies which he hath collected in a book of his called the Protestants plain Confession which he saith I have read and therefore I ought not to have dissembled them but perhaps I thought them too hard to be answered I confess I have read some of his books formerly but I deny that I have one of them in-present If I had doth he think it reasonable or indeed possible that in one Chapter I should take notice of all that hath been written upon this Subject I confess I have answered many impertinences in this Treatise but a man would not willingly go so far out of his way to seek an impertinence When I did read some of his Treatises I pitied the mispending of so much time in weeding and wresting of Authors of severall reformations who writ in the beginning of the Controversie between sleeping and waking Sometimes he condemneth us of Schism for communicating with them some other times he citeth them as our Classicall Authors and at other times from the different Opinions of the Sons of the same Church he impugneth the conclusion wherein they doe all accord As if I should argue this If the bread be transubstantiated into the body of Christ it is either by production or aâ—duction but such and such Roman catholick Authors doe deny that it is by produduction and such and such other Roman catholick Authors doe deny that it is by adduction therefore by the plain confession of Roman Catholicks there is no transubstantiation If I had omitted any testimonies of weight cited by him in this Treatise as he hath done the most of all my grounds then with better reason he might have called it dissembling He seemeth to me to take this course only to make his credulous Reader beleeve that there is more in his books then there is It is the Church of England which he hath undertaken to combate Let him not leave his chosen Province to seek out petty adversaries among strangers and think to wound the Church of England through their sides He needeth not to be so much abroad whilest he may have enough to doe at home He urgeth that there is no salvation out of the Church no more then there was out of the Arke of Noah howsoever or for whatsoever one went out That Noahs Arke was a figure of baptisme St. Peter doth assure us and it may also very fitly represent the Church but that is the catholick or universall Church and then we yeeld the conclusion that there is no salvation out of the Church But particular Churches are like severall Chambers or Partitions within the Arke of Noah A man might goe out of one of them untill it was cleansed into another without any danger The Church of Rome is not Noahs Arke but St Peters Boat The rest of the Apostles had their Boats as well as Saint Peter He beateth but the aire in citing Saint Austin and Saint Hierome against us who have neither left the Church nor the Communion of the Church He maketh our Church to be in worse condition then the Church of the Donatists because Protestants grant that the Church of Rome doth still retein the essence of a true Church but the Donatists did deny that the catholick Church of their time was a true Church Doth he not see that he argueth altogether against himself The Schism of the Donatists consisted therein that they did uncharitably censure the catholick Church to have lost the essence of the Church this was indeed to goe schismatically out of the Communion of the Church and on the other side this is our safety and security that we are so far from censuring the catholick Church that we doe not censure the Roman Church which is but a particular Church to be no Church or to have lost its Communion with Christ nor have separated from it in any essentiall of Christian Religion but only in corruptions and innovations Our Charity freeth us from Schism The uncharitableness of the Donatists rendred them Schismaticks It may be a good lesson for the Romanists who tread too much in the steppes of the Donatists What Calvine saith That God accounteth him a forsaker of his Religion who obstinately separateth himself from any Christian Society which keepeth the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments Or that there may some vice creep into the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments which ought not to alienate us from the communion of a true Church Or lastly that we must pardon errors in those things which may be unknown without violaâ—ing the summe of Religion or without losse of Salvation or we shall have no Church at all doth not concern us who doe not dream of an Anabaptisticall perfection and upon this very ground doe admit them to be a true Church though imperfect who
have not separated our selves but been chased away who have only forsaken errors not Churches much lesse obstinately and least of all in essentials who would gladly be contented to winke at small faults so they would not obtrude sinfull duties upon us as a condition of their communion The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margent whose scope is far enough from going about to perswade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome for which they are cited by him Rather on the contrary if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome and allow it not the essence of a Church what doth that concern the Church of England Will he blame us for being more moderate Trust me these Authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery He telleth us That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists If ours be Religion yours is separation They may rehearse the same words indeed but neither is Saint Austins case their case nor the Donatists case our case Sometimes they crie down our Religion as a negative Religion as faulty in the defect And now they accuse us of superstition in the excesse We approve no Church with which they communicate and we doe not Doctor Field saith that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church they need not use any other Argument It is most certain we all say the same But still he confoundeth the Church that is the universall Church with a Church that is a particular Church and a metaphysically true Church with a morally true Church Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense In this Section there is nothing but crambe bis cocta a repetition of what he hath formerly said over and over of Protestants separating themselves from the whole Christian World in communion of Sacraments Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvine Doctor Potter and Master Chillingworth which have already been fully answered He saith I indeavour to prove the lawfull Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time by the testimony of publick Registers and confession of Father Oldcorne He knoweth better if he please that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeths time but in Edward the sixths time If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it The Ecclesiasticall Registers doe make their Ordination so plain that no man who will but open his eies can be in doubt of it He confesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Registers were authenticall So must every one say or think that seeth them and every one is free to see them that will But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner and judged others by himself Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholick opinions Why did he change in this more then in any of the rest Because there is no defence against a Flaile no resisting evident demonstration which doth not perswade but compell men to believe But wherefore were not these Registers shewed before King James his time They were alwaies shewed to every man that desired to see them Registers are publick Records the sight whereof can be refused to no man The Officers hand is known the Office is secured from all supposititious writings both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register and by the testimony of all others who view the Records from time to time He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not shewed Which is first publickly promulged and after that affixed to the gates of the City and of the Common-Hall and all other publick places If he could have excepted against the persons either consecraters or consecrated as that there were not such persons or not so qualified or not present at that time he had had some reason for himself But Episcopall Ordination in England was too solemn and too publick an Act to be counterfeited And moreover the Proceedings were published in print to the view of the World whilest there were very many living who were eie witnesses of the Ordination And yet by his favour if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there as there were it might have made the Ordination illegall but not invalid for which I will give him a president and a witnesse beyond exception The president is Austine the first converter of the English the witnesse Saint Gregory Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia c. And truely in the English Church wherein there is no other Bishop but thy self thou canst not ordein a Bishop otherwise then alone c. But when by the grace of God Bishops are ordeined throughout all places Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops He asketh why Bishop Jewell or Bishop Horne did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops I might even as well ask him when he citeth an authority out of Saint Austin why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject did not cite it and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing Perhaps for I can but guesse untill he cite the places Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordination Perhaps judging them to be Hereticks they thought they had lost their character which yet he himself will acknowledg to be indeleble Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants and they gave a general answer Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records or lastly perhaps or indeed without perhaps they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination in respect of the Laws of England not upon the invalidity of it as shall clearly appear in my next answer In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers Why were they not shewed saith he when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the barre What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight yeers after Now let him take one answer for all There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer and the Book of Ordination as an appendix to it to be used throughout England in the reign of Edward the sixth This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth as to the Book of Common Prayer intending but not expresly mentioning the Book of Ordination which was an appendix to it So it was restored again either expresly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer as containing the publick Prayers of the Church for that occasion or at least implicitly as being printed in the Book of
Common Prayer from the beginning as an appendix to it Upon this pretended omission Bishop Bonner excepts against Bishop Horne's Ordination nor against the validitie of it what have Parliaments to doe with the essentials of Ordination but against the legality of it as to the Realm of England by reason of the former pretended omission So to take away scruple the Parliament enacted that it should be deemed good in the eye of our English Law The Parliament knew well that they had no power to make that Ordination valid in it self which was invalid in it self nor to make that invalid which was valid This had been to alter the essentials of Ordination But they had power for more abundant caution which never doth hurt to take away that scruple which was occasioned by a Statute of Queen Mary which in truth was sufficiently removed before What is this now to our Registers whether they be authentick or not No we beg no help from any civil Acts or Sanctions to maintain our Ordinations either for matter or form But we are ready to justifie them by those very rules which he saith the Councel of Trent offered to the Protestants namely Scripture Tradition Councels Fathers and especially the practice of the catholick Church But he saith we are not ordered to offer true substantial sacrifice Not expresly indeed No more were they themselves for eight hundred years after Christ and God knows how much longer No more are the Greek Church or any other Christian Church in the World except the Roman at this day Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly ordeined and admit them to exercise all offices of their Priestly Function in Rome it self which was alleged by me in the vindication and is passed over in silence by R. C. in this survey The Greeks have no more mention of a Sacrifice in their Ordination then we The grace of God promotes such a venerable Deacon to be a Presbyter yet the Church of Rome approveth their Ordination and all their other Rites so they will but only submit to the Popes spiritual Monarchy as we have seen in the case of the Patriarch of Muzall and the Russians subject to the Crown of Polonia and the like favour was offered to Queen Elizabeth upon the same condition It is not so long since Pope Gregory erected a Greek College at Rome to breed up the youth of that Nation where they have liberty of all the Greekish Rites only acknowledging the Supremacy of the Pope But though we have not express words for offering of Sacrifice nor the tradition of the Patine and the Chalice no more had their own Ancestors for a thousand yeers yet we have these words Receive the holy Ghost whose sins thou doest remit they are remitted c. Be thou a faithfull dispenser of the Word and Sacraments then which the Scriptures and Fathers did never know more which their own Doctors have justified as comprehending all essentials which being jointly considered doe include all power necessarie for the exercise of the Pastoral Office We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving a commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross a representative Sacrifice or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eies of his heavenly Father an impetrative Sacrifice or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of reall Prayer and lastly an applicative Sacrifice or an application of his merits unto our soules Let him that dare goe one step further then we doe and say that it is a suppletorie Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever Yet in his margent he hath placed a cloud of our Doctors Whitakers Morton Chillingworth Potter Fulke Reinolds Latimer without citing a syllable of what they say saving only Latimer and Reynolds that the name of Priest importeth Sacrifice or hath relation to Sacrifice In good time to doe him a courtesie we will suppose that all the rest say as much Such Sacrifice such Priest Let the Reader learn not to fear dumb shews There is nothing which any of these say which will either advantage his cause or prejudice ours Here he professeth to omit the survey of my last chapter yet because he toucheth some things in it upon the by I am obliged to attend his motion First I wonder why he should term us fugitives If we be fugitives what is he himself No we are Exules excluded out of our Countrie not profugi fugitives of our own accord from our Countrie And we hope that he who goeth on his way weeping and beareth forth good seed shall return with joy and bring his sheaves with him If not God will provide a resting place for us either under heaven or in heaven We praise thee O God we acknowledg thee to be the Lord. In the conclusion of my Treatise I proposed three ready meanes for the uniting of all Christian Churches which seemed to me very reasonable One of them was That whereas some Sects have contracted the Christian Faith over much by reviving some Heresies condemned by the primitive Church and on the other side the Church of Rome had enlarged the Christian Faith over much by making or declaring new Articles of Faith in this last age of the World the Creed or Belief of the Church containing all points of Faith necessary to be known of all Christians should be reduced to what it was in the time of the first four generall Councells I might adde and many ages after No man dare say that the Faith of the primitive Fathers was imperfect or insufficient Against this he maketh three objections first That there are no such fundamentall points of faith as Protestants imagine sufficient to salvation though other points of faith sufficiently proposed be not beleeved This objection is compounded of truth and falsehood That there are such fundamentals he himself confesseth elsewhere which are necessary not only necessiate paecepti but necessitate medii And if he did not confess it the authority of the Apostle would evince it That the belief of these alone is sufficient for the salvation of them to whom no more is revealed he dare not denie And that the beleef of these is sufficient to them who doe not beleeve other truths which are reveled unto them no Protestants did ever imagine Observe how cunningly he confounds the state of the question The question is not what is necessarie for a man to beleeve for himself This is as different as the degrees of mens knowledg but what may lawfully be imposed upon all men or what may be exacted upon other men to whom it is not revealed or to whom we doe not know whether it be revealed or not Then if he would have objected any thing materiall to the purpose he should have said That the beleef of
to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed For Governement her principle was that Christ had made S. Peter first or chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Churth after his departure out of this world and that the Bishops of Rome as successeours of S. Peter inherited from him this priviledge c. A little after he acknowledgeth that â—he first principle includeth the truth of the second And that there is this manifest evidence for it that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and that as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it Before we come to his applicarion of this to the Church of England or his inference from hence in favour of the Church of Rome it will not be amisse to examine his two principles and shew what truth there is in them and how falshood is hidden under the vizard of truth In the first place I desire the Reader to observe with what subtlety this case is proposed that the Church of England agreed with the Church of Rome all the rest of her Communion And again that the Bishop of Rome exercised this power in all those Countries which kept communion with the Church of Rome So seeking to obtrude upon us the Church of Rome with its dependents for the Catholick Church We owe respect to the Church of Rome as an Apostolical Church but we owe not that conformity subjection to it which we owe to the Catholick Church of Christ. Before this pretened seperation the Court of Rome by their temerarious censures had excluded two third parts of the Catholick Church from their Communion and thereby had made themselves Schismaticall The world is greater then the City all these Christian Churches which are excommunicated by the Court of Rome onely because they would never no more then their Ancestours acknowledge themselves subjects to the Bishop of Rome did inherit the Doctrine of saving Faith from their forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles and have been as faithfull depositaries of it as they And their testimony what this Legacy was is as much to be regarded as the Testimony of the Church of Rome and so much more by how much they are a greater part of the Catholick Church Secondly I observe how he makes two principles the one in doctrine the other in discipline though he confess that the truth of the latter is included in the former and borroweth its evidence from it onely that he might gaine themoreopportunity to shuffle the latter usurpations of the Popes into the ancient discipline of the Church and make these upstart novelties to be a part of that ancient Legacy Frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora It is in vaine to make two rules where oue will serve the turne I do readily admit both his first and his second rule reduced into one in this subsequent forme That those doctrines and that discipline which we inherited from our forefathers as the Legacy of Christ and his Apostles ought solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed that is substantiall or essential So the Church of England maintaines this rule now as well as they The question onely is who have changed that Doctrine or this Discipline we or they we by substraction or they by addition The case is clear the Apostles contracted this Doctrine into a Summary that is the Creed the primitive Fathers expounded it where it did stand in need of clearer explication The Generall Councell of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his baptismal profession Into this Faith were we baptized unto this Faith do we adhere whereas they have changed enlarged their Creed by the addition of new Articles as is to be seen in the new Creed or Confession of Faith made by Pius the fourth so for Doctrine Then for discipline we professe and avow that discipline which the whole Christian world practised for the first six hundred years all the Eastern Sowthern and Northern Churches untill this day They have changed the beginning of unity into an universality of Jurisdiction and Soveraignty of power above General Councels which the Christian world for the first six hundred years did never know nor the greatest part of it ever acknowledge until this day Let S. Peter be the first or chiefe or in a right sense the Prince of the Apostles or the first mover in the Church all this extends but to a primacy of order the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power was in the Apostolicall Colledge to which a generall Councell now succeedeth It is evident enough whether they or we doe hold our selves better to the legacy of Christ and his Apostles Thirdly whereas he addeth that The Bishops of Rome as successours of S. Peter inherited his priviledges and actually excercised this power in all those countries which kept Communion with the Church of Rome that very year wherein this unhappy separation began as it commeth much short of the truth in one respect for the Popes exercised much more power in those Countries which gave them leave then ever S. Peter pretended unto so it is much more short of that Universall Monarchy which the Pope did then and doth still claime For as I have already said two third parts of the Christian world were not at that time of his Communion but excommunicated by him onely because they would not submit their necks to his yoke And those other Countries which yielded more obedience to him or were not so well able to contest against him yet when they were overmuch pinched and his oppresons and usurpations did grow intolerable did oppose him and make themselves the last judges of their own liberties and grievancies and of the limits of Papall authority and set bounds unto it as I have demonstrated in the â—indication So whereas this refuter doth undertake to state the case clearly he commeth not neer the true question at all which is not whether the Bishop of Rome had any authority in the Catholick Church he had authority in his Diocesse as a Bishop in his Province as a Metropolitan in his Patriarchate as the chief of the five Protopatriarchs and all over as the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church or successour of S. Peter But the true question is what are the right limits and bounds of his authority whether he have a legiâ—lative power over all Christians whether the patronage aud disposition of all Churches doth belong unto him whether he may convocate Synods and exercise Jurisdiction and sell palles pardons and indulgences and send Legates and set up Legantine Courts and impose pensions at his pleasure in all kingdomes without consent of Soveraigne Princes and call all Ecclesiasticall causes to Rome and interdict whole nations and infringe their liberties and customes and excommunicate Printes and
deprive them of their Realms and absolve their subjects from their allegiance Let these pretended branches of Papall power be lopped off and all things restored to the primitiye forme and then the Papacy will be no more like that insana Laurus the cause of contention or division in all places In the mean time if they want that respect which is due unto them they may blame themseves who will not accept what is their just right unlesse they may have more Fourthly ' that which followes is a great mistake that it was and is the constant beliefe of the Câ—thelick world that these principles are Christs owne ordination recorded in Scripture What that S. Peter had any power over his fellow-Apostles or that the Bishop of Rome succeeds him in that power It doth not appear out of the holy text that S. Peter was at Rome except we understand Rome by the name of Babylon If it be Christs own ordâ—nation recorded in the scriptures that S. Peter should have all these priviledges and the Bishop of Rome inherit themashis successour thenthe great generall Councel of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equal prviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperial City more then the ordination of Christ. Then the whole Catholick Church was much to be blamed to receive such an unjust coustirution not approved by the then Bishop of Rome Lastly this is so farre from the constant belief of the Catholick world that it is not the beliefe of the Roman Church it self at this day The greatest defenders of the Popes Supremacy dare not say that the Bishop of Rome succedeth S. Peter by Christs owne ordination but onely by S. Peters dying Bishop of Rome They acknowledge that S. Peter might have dyed Bishop of Antioch and then they say the Bishop of Antioch had succeeded him or he might have died Bishop of no place and then the Papacy had been in the disposition of the Catholick Church though he died at Rome as without doubt it is and may be contracted or enlarged or translated from one See to another for the advantage of Christian Religion His manifest evidence which he stileth so ample a memory and succession as is stronger then the stock of humane government and action That is that still the latter age could not be ignorant of what the former believed and as long as it adhered to that method nothing could be altered in it is so far from a demonstration that it scarcely deserveth the name of a Topicall argument For as an universall uncontroverted tradition of the whole Christian world of all ages united is a convinclng and undeniable evidence such a tradition is the Apostles Creed comprehending in it all the necessary points of saving Faith repeated daily in our Churches every Christian standing up at it both to expresse his assent unto it and readinesse to maintaine it professed by every Christian at his Baptisme either personally when he is of age sufficient or by his sureties when he is an infant and the tradition of the universall Church of this age a proof not to be opposed nor contradicted by us So the tradition of some particular persons or some particular Churches in particular points or opinions of an inferiour nature which are neither so necessary to be knowne nor so firmely beleeved nor so publiquely aâ—d universally professed nor derived downwards from the Apostolicalages by such uninterrupted succession doth produce no such certainty either of evidence or adherence When the Christian world is either not united or divided about particular opinions or inferiour points of faith it proveth most probably that there was no Apostolical tradition at first but that particular persons or places have assumed their respective opinions in succeeding ages Or otherwise there is a fault in the conduit-pipe or an errour and failing in the derivatton of the tradition And both these do take much away from assurance more or less according to the degree of the opposition In such questionable and controverted points as these which are neither so universally received nor so publiquely professed his assertion is groundless and erroneous that the latter age cannot be ignorant what the former believed Yes in such controverted points this present age may not know yea doth not know what it self beleeveth or rather opiniateth untill it come to be voted in a Synod The most current opinions in the Schoos are not alwaies the most generaly received in the Church those which are most plaâ—sible in one place are often hissed out of another And though it were possible for a man to know what opinion is universally most current yet how shall he know that the greater part is the sounder part or if he did how shall he know that what he beleeveth in such points is more then an indifferent opinion Or that it was deposited by the Apostles with the Church and delivered from age to age by an uninterrupted succession No waies but by universall tradition of the Christian world united either written or unwritten but this is all the evibence which they can expect who confound universall tradition with particular tradition the Roman Church with the Catholick Church the Christian world united with the Christian world divided and Scholasticall opinions with Articles of Faith Yet from these two principles he maketh two inferences the one against the Church of England that since the reformation neither the former rule of unity of Faith nor the second of unity of governement have had any power in the English Church Whilest he himself knoweth no better what we beleeve who live in the same age how doth he presume that the latter age cannot be ignorant of what the former beleeved I have shewed him already how we do willingly admit this principle wherein both his rules are comprehended that the doctrines and discipline inherited from our Forefathers as the legacies of Christ and his Apostles are solely to be acknowledged for obligatory and nothing in them to be changed This is as much as any person disinteressed can or will require And upon this principle we are willing to proceed to a triall with them There is a fallacy in Logick called of more interrogations then one that is when severall questions of different natures to which one uniforme answer cannot be given yea or no are mixed confounded together So he doth not onely set down this second rule concerning governement ambiguously that a man cannot tell whether he make S. Peter onely an head of order among the Apostles or an head of single power and Jurisdiction also over the Apostles but also he shuffles the Bishop of Rome into S. Peters place by Christs own ordination and confounds S. Peters Ex o dium Vnitatis with the usurped power of Popes as it was actually exercised by them in latter ages His second inference is in favour of the Church of Rome that the Roman Church with those Churches
Beatissimus et Apostolicus vir Papa hoc nobis praecipit Nec additur Leo aut Romanus aut nobis Romae aut aliquid aliud When the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome onely is to be understood as appeareth out of the Councel of Chalcedon The most blessed and Apostolical man the Pope doth command us this Neither is there added Pope Leo or the Pope of Rome or the Pope of the City of Rome or any other thing His second exception hath no more weight then the former That there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes the See being translated 50. years before that to St. Davids Where is the contradiction The name of the old Diocess is Caerleon The new See or Throne was the new Abby Church erected aâ— Menevia which place posterity called St. Davids But St. Davids could not be called St. Davids whilst he himself lived nor afterward until custome and tract of time had confirmed such an appellation Some would make us believe that St. David and St. Gregâ—ry dyed upon the same day and then he was still living when Dinoth gave this answer But let that be as it will for it is not much material St. David after the Translation of his See dyed Archbishop of Caerleon Tunc obiâ—t sanctissimus urbis Legionum Archiepiscopus David in Meneviae Civitate c. Then dyed the most holy Archbishop of Caerleon St. David in the City of Menevia And long after his death it still reteined the name of Caerleon even after it was commonly called St. Davids So much Sr. Henry Spilman might have put him in mind of Discesserat ante haec dignitas a Caerlegione ad Landâ—viam sub Dubrâ—tio et mox â— Landavia ad Meneviam cum sancto Davide c. Sed retento pariter Caerlegionis titulo And least he should account Sr. Henry Spilman partial Let him hear Giraldus Cambrensis Habuimus apud Meneviam Vrbis legionum Archiepiscopos successive viginti quinque quorum primus fuit sanctus David c. We had at Menevia five and twenty Archbishops of Caerleon whereof St. David was the first What can be more plain should a man condemn every Author forcounterfeit wherein St. Albans is called Verolam presently after St. Albans death It is an ordinary thing for the same City to have two names and much more the same Bishoprick one from the old See another from the new or one from the Diocess another from the See as the Bishop of Ossory or Kilkenny indifferently His third exception is so slight that I cannot find the edge of it because Sr. Henry Spilman found no other antiquity in it worth the mention which shrewdly implyes that the Book was made for this alone And how doth he know that Sr. Henry Spilman found no other antiquities in it There might be many other British Antiquities in it And yet not proper for a collection of Ecclesiastical Councels Or if there had been no other Antiquity in it Would he condemn his Creed for a counterfeit because it is not hudled together confusedly with some other Treatises in one volume But to demonstrate evidently to him how vain all his trifling is against the testimony of Dionothus Why doth he not answer the coroberatory proof which I brought out of venerable Bede and others of two Brittish Synods held at the same time wherein all the Brittish Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome of which all our hystoriographers do bear witness Why doth he not answer this but pass by it in so great silence He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other since it is so well attested that Dionothus was a great actor and disputer in that business Sect. 5. In my sixth Chapter I proved three things First that the King and Church of England had sufficient authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch Secondly that they had just grounds to do it And thirdly that they did it with due moderation Concerning the first point he chargeth me the second time for insisting upon a wrong Plea that is their Patriarchal Authority which he confesseth to be humane and mutable I have formerly intimated why they are so loath to entertaine any discourse concerning the Popes Patriarchate because they know not how to reconcile a Monarchy of divine institution with an Aristocracy of humane Institution When I first undertook this subject I conceived that the great strength of the Roman Sampson did lye in his Patriarchate But since this Refuter quitteth it as the Pope himself hath done not for six hundred years onely he speaks too sparingly but for a thousand years ever since Phocas made Boniface universal Bishop I am well contented to give over that subject upon these two conditions First that he do not presume that the Pope is a spiritual Monarch without proving it Secondly that he do not attempt to make Patriarchal Priviledges to be Royal Prerogatives Yet he will not leave this humane Right before we have resolved him three questions First saith he suppose the Christian world had chosen to themselves one head for the preservation of unity in Religion What wrongs must that head do to be sufficient grounds both for the deposition of the person and abolition of the Government Nay put the case right Suppose the Christian World should chuse one for order sake to be their President or Prolocuter in their General Assembly and he should endeavour to make himself their Prince upon some fained Title Did not he deserve to be turned out of his employment if they found it expedient to have another chosen in his place Secondly He supposeth that this alteration should be made by some one party of the Christian Commonwealth which must separate it self from the communion of the rest of Christianity Ought not far weightier causes then these to be expected One mistake begets another as one circle in the water doth produce anotherâ— We have made no such separation from any just Authority instituted by the Catholick Church We nourish a more Catholick Communion then themselves But if our Steward will forsake us because we will not give him leave to become our Master who can help it Thirdly He supposeth that by setting aside this Supreme Head eternal dissentions will inevitably follow in the whole Church of Christ and then demandeth Whether the refusal to comply with the humours of a lustful Prince be ground enough to renounce so necessary an Authority How should the refusal to comply be any such ground Certainly he means the compliance with the humors of a lustful Prince I pass by the extravagancy of the expression Whatsoever they have said or can say concerning Henry the eighth so far as it may reflect upon the Church of England is cleared in my reply to R.C. First He begs the question Christ never instituted the Apostles never constituted the Catholicke Church never acknowledged any such Supreme Head of Power 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
Alan Apol. c. 4. p. 59. Sond de Schism p 103 b. Denique nulla in re a side Catholica discessit nisi libidinis luxuâ—iâ— causa Sect. 4. A full justification of our penall Laws L 3. L. 1. de Orator Leg. 12. tal Aen Gaz. in Theo. phâ—asium Cont Aristâ—câ—aetem Timocratem Sand de Schis l. 1. Camd Annal Eliz. l. 2. p. 7. Id. l. 2. p. 98. Id l 4. p. 145 p. 150. p 164. Câ—md Annal l 3 p. 11 Ibid. l. 3. p. 44. l. 3. p. 74. Camd. An. l. 3. p. 132 Apol. Marc. p. 329. Camd. An. l 3. p. 11. Apr. 1. El. 23. ex Apol. Mart. Edm. Camp epist. ad Conc. R. Aug. pag. 127. Camb. Annal Eliz an 1581. Camb. Annal. Eliz an 1581. Sect. 1. The Kings of England alwaies politicall Heads of the English Church Not only acts of Papall Power but the Power it self contrary to our Laws Jurisdiction is from Ordination but Princes apply the matter Jurisdidiction enlarged and fortified with coercive power by Princes Henry the eighth not exempt from the power of the Keyes An. 25. H. 8. C. xxi Sect. 2. Saint Wilfrid Spel. conc An. 705. Bed l. 5. Ecc. hist c. 20. St. Austin and his â— Fellowes Bed l. 2. c 4. Bed l. 1. e. 25. See Speed l. 6 c. 9. 11.22 Fed. l. 1. c. 29. Bed l. 2. c. 2. Bed l. 2. c. 4. St. Melit L. 2. c. 4. Ibidem Bed l. 3. c 29. An Aâ—ch bâ—shop sent from Rome L. 4 c. 1. Bed l. 3. c 25. St. Peter Poâ—ter of Heaven Camd. Brit. p. 165. St Peter Superior to Saint Paul L. 2. Flor. c. 11. St. Peter a Monarch Bed l. 4 c. 18. John the precentor Malm. l 2â— Reg. c 9. Bishoprickâ— erâ—cted in England by the Pope answered Wil Malmes l. 1. Reg. c. 6. L. 2â— Floâ— c. 11. Edgar apud Ealred in orati ad Episcopos withred a pud Speim Conc p. 192 Clergy-men not exempted from seculaâ— Judges Plat. in politico Ibâ—dem 〈◊〉 Ser. 25 in 14 c 〈◊〉 Rome hath no certainâ—y of iâ—tallibilitiâ— Bell. de Ro. Pont. l. 4. â— 4. Aclred de vita Mirac Edw. Conf. superseriptions to Popes 2 Cor. 11. 28. Aclred ibidem Walsing Aâ— 133 How the Pope presideth above all Creatures Wâ—lsiâ—g â— An 1343. 25 E. 3. Wals. An. 1343. Wals. ibidem Aust. Ep. 50. Sect. 2. Patriarchs indâ—pâ—ndent upon a single Superior Socrat. l. 2. â— 11 Cypr. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3. Conc. â—â—hâ—sia part 1. act 7. Bâ—itain enjoyed the Cyprian pâ—iviledge Math Paris in H 3. an 1238. Itineâ—az Caâ—â—b l 2. c 1. Bellarmine maâ—â—s the Apostles all equal in power I. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 23. L. 4 de Ro. pont c. 16. L 1. de Ro Pont. c. 12. Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae Cont. Iovin l. 1. c. 14. How Peter head of the rest A superiority of Order is sufficient to prevent Schisme The rest Pastors as well as Peter De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. l. 1. c. 9. Sect. 2. Universality an incommunicable qualification of the Apostles 9 c. 8. s. 2. Bel l. 4. de Ro. Pont c â—4 All Episcopall jurisdiction is not derived from the Pope Sect. 3. The Chair of St. Peter not fixed to Rome by Divine right l. 2. de Pont. Ro. c. 12. Bel. de Pont. Ro. l. â—â— c. 23. Io 21.18 Bel de Râ— Poâ— 2. c. 12. Ibidem Nor by humane right Sect. 4. Gild. in Prol. Whether St. Peter converted Britain Onuph Of Eleutherius his sending into Engand And Victors into Scotland Ninian Bed l. 3â— c. 4. Palladius and S. Patrick Bed in viâ—a St. Patriâ— l. 1. Germanus and Lupus Prosp. in Chron. Constant de vita Germ. l. 1. Bed l 1. c. 17. Baron an 429. Constant l. c. 19. Idem c. 23 Austine Dubritius St. Samson Vind. p. 150. Pol. Virg. l 13 hist. Angl. Itiâ— Camb l. 1. c. 1. Râ—g â—â—ved An. anno 1â—99 King Iames. Matrix Ecclesia Sect. 5. Bed l. 2. c. 2. â—ed l. 3. c. 25. Vind. p. 115 116. Aqui. ◠〈◊〉 2.2 quaest 88. Art 2. 10. A King hath all power needfull for the preservation of his Kingdome A respective necessity is a sufficient ground of a Reformation Act. 15.28 Act. 21 20 Senec. Our Reformation was necessary Hall 24. Hen. 8. sol 205. The Regiment of the Church conformed to that of the Commonwealth conc chalc c. 11. vel 12. Dist. 99. In gain or losse all circumstances to be considered 1 Pet. 1.7 Our Reformation not contrary to the Decrees of generall Councels Novell 11 131. p. 127. But in pur suance of them King Henries Divorce lawfull but no ground of the Reformation Hall in Hen. 8. an 20. sol 180. b. an 21 f. 182. All the Cardinals of Rome opposed the Dispensation Hall An. 1. H. 8. Acworth emt Sand 1 2. c 13. 14 Hall An. 19. H 8. fâ—l 161. Sand de Schism p. 11. 12. Steph. Wint. de vera Obedientia apnd Gild. t. 1. p. 721. Ld. Cherb in Hen 8. An 1530. p. 303. Sufficere sant alioqui debuisset causae ipsius c. The Parliament not forced Idem p. 334. Anno. 1530. De vera Obedien tia Ibâ—dem p. 719. King Henry did not act against conscience c 3. s. 5. Ld. Cherb H. 8. an 1530. p. 305. Consilio divino Sand. de Sâ—hism p. 102. Lord Cherb fol. 398. P 128. Our separation from the Papacy was not for the faults of Popes but of the Papacy it self Luk. 13.7 whether Popes have done more good or hurt to England not materiall 2 King 18.4 Sect. 2. Conc. Turor Râ—sp ad Art 3. 48. It was lawfull to withdraw obedience from Papâ—ll Authority corrupted Princes the last Judges of the injuries done to their Subjâ—cts by Popes Bish. Epist. ad Reg. Iocob p. 11. Rom. 13.1 2. Prov. â— 15 Kingly Authority from God not Papal Sect. 3. The grounds of our sâ—paration An. 30. Sect. 4. The Popes new Articles of Faith a just cause of separation The deâ—â—ining of the Cup in the Sacrament a just cause of separation Odoardus Barlosa forma Celebrandi c. Papists right Heirs of the Donatists Optat. l. 2. Whether Protestants and Papists differ in Essentials Psal. 139.16 Sect. 5. Papists acknowledge possibility of our salvation as much as we of theirs Sect. 6. Our separation only from errors Math. 15.9 We arrogate to our selves no new Church c. Whether our Religion be the same with theirs or not we are no Schismaticks Quaest 14. de side Aâ—t 1. Justification by speciall faâ—â—h no Aâ—â—icle of our Church Probl. 22. Probl. 26. Our negatives no Articles of Faith Sect. 7. An implicite submission to the Catholick Church sufficient to salvation 〈…〉 Papists agree not what is their infallâ—ble proponent Aust. epist. 48. The name of Catholick from universall Communion not right beleefe c. 2 sect 6. More dangerous to exclude then to include others in our Communion The politick Supremacy of Princes in