CLARIOR E TENEBRIS BEATAM AETERNA CAELI SPECTO ASPERAM AT LEVEM CHRISTI TRACTO In verbo tuo Spes mea MUNDI CALCO SPLENDIDAM AT GRAVEM Alij diutius Imperium tenuerunt nemo tam fortiter reliquit Tarit Histor Lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417. Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX Bona agere mala pati Regium est Page 1. The Establish'd Church OR A SUBVERSION OF ALL The Romanist's Pleas FOR THE POPE'S SUPREMACY IN ENGLAND Together with A VINDICATION of the present Government of the Church of England as allow'd by the Laws of the Land against all Fanatical exceptions particularly of Mr. Hickeringill in His Scandalous Pamphlet stiled NAKED TRUTH the 2d Part. In Two Books By FRAN. FVLLWOOD D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXI REVERENDISSIMO In Christo Patri GULIELMO Archiepiscopo CANTUARIENSI Totius ANGLIAE PRIMATI Regiae Serenissimae Majestatis à Sanctioribus Conciliis FRANCISCVS FVLLWOOD Olim Collegii EMANUEL Apud CANTABRIGIENSES Librum hunc humillimè D. D. D. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND Father in God GEORGE Lord Bishop of WINTON Prelate of the Most Noble Order of the GARTER My very good Lord BLessed be God that I have Survived this Labour which I once feared I should have sunk under and that I live to publish my Endeavours once more in the Service of the Church of England and thereby have obtained my wish'd opportunity to dedicate a Monument of my deep Sence of your Lordship's manifold obligations upon me In particular I rejoyce in the acknowledgment that I ow my Publick Station next under God and His Sacred Majesty to your Lordship's Assistance and Sole Interest though I cannot think so much out of kindness to my Person then altogether unknown to your Lordship as affection and care of the Church grounded in a great and pious intention however the object be esteem'd truly worthy of so Renowned a Prelate and many other waies excellent and admired Patriot of the Church of England If either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakning the Bulworks of Non-Conformity or my present Essay may succeed in any measure to evince or confirm the Truth in this greater Controversie I am happy that as God hath some glory and the Church some advantage so some honour redounds upon your Lordship who with a virtuous design gave me a Capacity at first and ever since have quickned and animated my Endeavours in those Services I may be permitted to name our Controversie with the Church of Rome the great Controversie For having been exercised in all the sorts of Controversie with Adversaries on the other hand I have found that all of them put together are not considerable either for weight of matter or copiousness of Learning or for Art Strength or Number of Adversaries in comparison of this It takes in the Length of time the Breadth of place and is managed with the Heighth of Wit and Depth of Subtlety the Hills are covered with the Shadow of it and its Boughs are like the goodly Cedars My Essay in these Treatises is to shorten and clear the way and therefore though I must run with it through all time I have reduc'd the place and removed the Wit and Subtleties that would impede our progress I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches and swelling excrescencies to lay aside all personal reflections captious advantages Sophistical and Sarcastical Wit and to set the Arguments on both sides free from the darkness of all kind of cunning either of escape or reply in their plain light and proper strength as also to confine the Controversie as near as I can within the bounds of our own Concern i. e. our own Church And when this is done the plain and naked truth is that the meanest of our other Adversaries I had almost said the silly Quaker himself seems to me to have better Grounds and more like Christian than the glorious Cause of the Papacy But to draw a little nearer to our Point your Lordship cannot but observe that one end of the Roman Compass is ever fixed upon the same Center and the summ of their clamour is our disobedience to the See of Rome Our defense stands upon a twofold Exception 1. Against the Authority 2. Against the Laws of Rome and if either be justified we are innocent The first Exception and the defence of our Church against the Authority of that See is the matter of this Treatise the second is reserved I have determined that all the Arguments for the Pope's Authority in England are reduceable to a five-fold Plea the Right of Conversion as our Apostle the Right of a Patriarch the Right of Infallibility the Right of Prescription and the Right of Universal Pastorship the Examination of them carries us through our Work Verily to my knowledge I have omitted nothing Argumentative of any one of these Pleas yea I have considered all those little inconsiderable things which I find any Romanists seem to make much of But indeed their pretended Right of possession in England and the Universal◠Pastorship to which they adhere as their surest holds have my most intended and greatest strength and care and dilligence that nothing material or seemingly so might escape either unobserved or not fully answered let not the contrary be said but shewn I have further laboured to contract the Controversie two ways 1. By a very careful as well as large and I hope as clear state of the question in my definition and discourse of Schism at the beginning whereby mistakes may be prevented and much of matter disputed by others excluded 2. By waving the dispute of such things as have no influence into the Conclusion and according to my use giving as many and as large Concessions to the Adversary as our Cause will suffer Now my end being favourably understood I hope there is no need to ask your Lordships or any others pardon for that I have chosen not to dispute two great things 1. That in the Words tu es Petrus super hanc Petram there is intended some respect peculiar to saint Peter's Person it is generally acknowledged by the most learned Defenders of our Church that Saint Peter had a Primacy of Order and your Lordship well knows that many of the Ancient Fathers have expressed as much and I intend no more 2. That Tradition may be Infallible or indefectible in the delivery of the Essentials of Religion for ought we know By the Essentials we mean no more but the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Decalogue and the two Sacraments in this I have my Second and my Reason too for then Rushworth's Dialogues and the new Methods of Roman opposition need not trouble us My good Lord it is high time to beg your Pardon that I have reason to conclude with an excuse for
a long Epistle the truth is I thought my self accountable to your Lordship for a Brief of the Book that took its being from your Lordship's Encouragement and the rather because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good Old Age should perplex it self with Controversie which the Good God continue long and happy to the honour of his Church on Earth and then crown with the Glory of Heaven It is the hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title ' T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing now insisted on 2. ' T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King ' s Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory ' s Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. ' T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory ' s Grant nor that King ' s Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England ' s Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine ' s possession of so small a part 4. ' T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine ' s Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding arch-Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John ' s endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope ' s Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope ' s Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council though the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is
Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times
Succession except their own and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion as the great aggravation of their Schism they Challenge a temporal Power over Princes either directly or indirectly Thus their Charge against us is Disobedience Our Charge against them is Usurpation and abuse of Power If we owe no such Obedience or if we have cause not to obey we are acquitted If the Pope have both power and reason of his side we are guilty If he fail in either the whole weight of Schism with all its dreadful Consequences remains upon him or the Court of Rome The Conclusion TThus we see the Controversie is broken into two great points 1. Touching the Papal Authority in England 2. Touching the Cause of our denying Communion in some things with the Church of Rome required by that Authority Each of these I design to be the matter of a distinct Treatise This first Book therefore is to try the Title The Sum of this first Treatise betwixt the Pope and the Church of England Wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the Pleas and Evidences produced and urged by Romanists on their Masters behalf and shew how they are answered and where there appears greatest weight and stress of Argument we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence Omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other Now to our Work CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments Proposed and briefly reflected on THis is their Goliah and indeed their whole Army if we rout them here the day is our own and we shall find nothing more to oppose us but Skirmishes of Wit or when they are at their Wits end fraud and force as I am troubled to observe their Use hath been For if the See of Rome hath no just claim or Title to govern us we cannot be obliged to obey it and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world We are no Schismaticks though we deny obedience to the See of Rome seeing it cannot justly challenge it 2dly Though we were so yet the See of Rome hath no power to consure us that hath no power to govern us And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude that the Papal Authority that hath nothing to do with the English Church and yet rigorously exacts our obedience and censures us for our disobedience is highly guilty both of Ambition in its unjust claim and of Tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power as well in her Commands as Censures which is certainly Schism and aliquid ampliùs They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim without which they know they can never hope either to gain us or secure themselves I find five several Titles pretended though methinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock 1. The Pope being the means of our first Conversion as they say did thereby acquire a Right 1. Conversion for himself and successors to govern this Church 2. England belongs to the Western Patriarohate 2. Patriarch and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West as they would have it 3. Others found his Right in Prescription and 3. Prescription long continued possession before the Reformation 4. Others flee much higher and derive this 4. Infallibility power of Government from the Infallibility of the Governor and indeed who would not be led by an unerring Guide 5. But their strong hold to which at last resort 5. Succession is still made is the Popes Vniversal Pastorship as Successor to St. Peter and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only but of the whole Christian World Before we enter upon trial of these severally we shall briefly note that where there are many Titles pretended Right is justly suspected especially if the Pretences be inconsistent 1. Now how can the Pope as the Western Patriarcb or as our first Converter pretend to be our Governor and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop These some of our suttlest Adversaries know to imply a contradiction and to destroy one another 2. At first sight therefore there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship to wave the Arguments either from the Right of Conversion or the Western Patriarchate or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these he may not think the Chair of St. Peter shall be his Sanctuary at a dead lift 3. Also for Possession what need that be pleaded if the Right be evident Possession of a part if the Right be universal unless by England the Pope took livery and Seisen for the whole world Besides if this be a good plea it is as good for us we have it and have had it time out of mind if ours have not been quiet so neither was theirs before the Reformation 4. For Infallibility that 's but a Qualification no Commission Fitness sure gives no Authority nor desert a Title and that by their own Law otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs are as good and lawful Bishops as any the Church of Rome hath Thus we see where the Burthen will rest at last and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold One great thing concerns them to make sure or all is lost the whole Controversir is tied to St. Peters Chair the Supremacy of the Pope must be maintained or the Roman and Catholick are severed as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome and a great breach is made indeed but we are not found the Schismaticks But this is beside my task Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach all the said five Pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly examined and the main Arguments and Answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as I can produced And where the Controuersie sticks and how it stands at this day noted as before we promised CHAP. III. Of the Popes Claim to England from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory THis Argument is not pressed with much confidence in Print though with very much in Discourse to my own knowledge Perhaps 't is rather popular and plausible than invincible Besides it stands in barr against the Right of St. Peter which they say was good near six hundred years before and extends to very many Churches that received grace neither by the means of St. Peter or his pretender Successor except they plead a right to the whole Church first and to a part afterwards or one kind of right to the whole and another to a part The truth is if any learned Romanist shall insist on this Argument in earnest he is strongly suspected either to deny or question the Right of St. Peter's Successor
History that it is beyond Before Conquest question that during all the time from St. Gregory to the Conquest the Brittish Saxon and Danish Kings without any dependance on the Pope did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws Witness the laws of Excombert Ina Withred Alfrede Edward Athelstan Edmond Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor among which Laws one makes it the Office of a King to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God Indeed at last the Pope was officiously kind and did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of those Kings Edward the Confessor a Priviledge which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots But with thanks to his Holiness our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning in the right of the Crown without respect to his curtesie in that matter After the Conquest our Norman Kings did After Conquest also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices Tythes Advowsons Lands given in Mortmain Prohibitions Consultations Praemunires quare impedits Priviledge of the Clergy Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers Regulation of Fees Wages of Priests Mortuaries Sanctuaries Appropriations and in sum as Bishop Bramhall adds All things which did belong to the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73. But what Laws do we find of the Popes making in England or what English Law hath he ever effectually abrogated 'T is true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed but before they became obliging or had the force of Laws the King had power in his great Council to receive them if they were judged convenient or if otherwise to reject them 'T is a notable instance that we have of this 20 Ed. 3. c. 9. in Ed. 3. time When some Bishops proposed in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the legitimation of Children born before Marriage all the Peers of the Realm stood up and cried out with one voice Nolumus leges Angliae mutari we will not have the Laws of England to be changed A clear evidence that the Popes Canons were not English Laws and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so without the Parliament Likewise the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition of the Canon of the Council of Lions concerning Bigamy which they would 4 Ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England either to receive it or reject it These are plain and undeniable evidences that when Popery was at highest the Popes Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual without the countenance of a greater and more powerful viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings Now admit that during some little space Obj. the Pope did impose and England did consent to the authority of his Canons as indeed the very Consent admitted rejecting of that authority intimates yet that is very short of the Possession of it without interruption for nine hundred years together the contrary being more than evident However this Consent was given either by By Permission Permission or Grant If only by Permission whether through Fear or Reverence or Convenience it signifies nothing when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties and resolve to endure it no longer If a Grant be pretended 't was either from Or by Grant the King alone or joyned with his Parliament If from the King alone he could grant it for his time only and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors accompanies the Crown of the Successor and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it I believe none will undertake to affirm that the Grant was made by the Law or the King with his Parliament Yet if this should be said and proved too it would argue very little to the purpose for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law The Kings Prerogative as Head of this Church lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom the foundation of our common Law and in the very Law of Nature and is no more at the will of the Parliament than the fundamental liberties of the Subject Lastly the same Power that makes can repeal a Law if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged and ratified by Parliament which cannot be said 't is most certain it was revoked and renounced by an equal Power viz. of Henry the Eighth and the whole Body of the Kingdom both Civil and Ecclesiastical It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power but that for the Publick good it may revoke any Concessions Permissions or Priviledges thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign when reciting the Statute of Edward the First they say the Statute holdeth alway his force and that the King is bound by Oath to cause the same to be kept and consequently if taken away to be restored to its Observation as the Law of the Land that is the Common Fundamental unalterable Law of the Land Besides the Case is most clear that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical were not altered or repealed and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Incroachments and not against but according to the Statute as well as the Common Law of the Land witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire which as my Lord Bramhall saith we may truly call 25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulph of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. CHAP. XI Of the Power of Licences c. here in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7. THough the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England yet if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power that will have the effect of Laws and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws in Ecclesiastical Causes and upon Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is confest the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth by his Licences Dispensations Impositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies and
other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same Statute as also by another 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in or rather reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury saving the Rights of the See of York in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King the Wealth and Profit of the Realm and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflexion they are 1. The Pope's Vsurpation in the Premises 2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people that he had full Power to dispence with all humane Laws Uses and Customs in all Causes Spiritual 3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years 4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 5. England recognizeth no Superior under God but the King only and is free from Subjection to any Laws but such as are ordained within this Realm or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage and not as Laws of any Forreign Power 6. And lastly that according to Natural Equity the whole State of our Realm in Parliament hath this Power in it and peculiar to it to dispence with alter Abrogate c. our own Laws and Customs for Publick good which Power appears by wholsom Acts of Parliament made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth in the time of his Progenitors For these Reasons it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth That no Subject of England should sue for Licences c. henceforth to the Pope but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Now 't is confessed before and in the Preamble to the Statute that the Pope had used this Power for many years but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance and one Reason for Redress but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint Austine or how long quietly is the proper question especially seeing the Laws of the Land made by King Henry's Predecessors are pleaded by him in contradiction to it Yea who will come forth and shew us one Instance No Instance 1110 years after Christ of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ if not five hundred of the nine hundred years Prescription and the first five hundred too as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen are lost to the Popes and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England But Did not the Church of England without any reference to the Court of Rome use this Power during the first eleven hundred years what man is so hardy as to deny it against the multitude of plain Instances in History Did not our Bishops relax the Rigor of Ecclesiastical Canons did not all Bishops all over the Christian World do the like before the Monopoly was usurped In the Laws of Alured alone and in the conjoynt Gervis Dorober p. 1648. Laws of Alured and Gunthrun how many sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England and the like we find in the Laws of Spel. Conc. p. 364. c. some other Saxon Kings Dunstan the Arch Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count he made his peace at Rome the Pope commands his Restitution Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I Ibid. p. 481. see him penitent but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical Discipline to insult over us God forbid that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man this great Instance doth two things at once justifieth the arch-Arch-Bishops and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King and with Queen Maud the Wife of Henry the First in the like Case in the days of Anselm without any Suit to Rome or Forreign Dispensation Lanfr Ep. 32. Eadm l. 3. p. 57. These are great and notorious and certain Instances and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards As the Selected Cardinals Stile the avaritious Dispensations of the Pope Sacrilegious Vulnera Legum so our Statutes of Provisors expresly 27 Ed. 3. say they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land accordingly The King Lords and Commons complained of this abuse as a Mighty Grievance of the frequent coming among them of this Infamous Math. Par. Au. 1245. Messenger the Pope's non-obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customs Writings Grants Statutes Rights Priviledges were not only weakned but made void Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford and by his Bull exempted the Vniversity from his Jurisdiction and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and the probable Ruine of the said University Ex Arch. Tur. Londini Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91. In interruption of this Papal Vsurpation were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 Et 12 Rich. 2. Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expresly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England because they executed the King's Comandments in his Courts they express the mischiefs to be the Disinherison of the Crown the Destruction of the King Laws and Realm that the Crown of England is subject to none under God and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it against the Pope and the same King contested the Point himself with him and would not yield it An Excommunication by the Arch-Bishop albeit Lord Coke Cawdrie's Case it be disanulled by the Pope is to be allowed by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl Excom 4. For the Pope's Bulls in special our Laws have abundantly provided against them as well in case of Excommunication as Exemption vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass pl. 19. and the abundant as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws in Cawd Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope but it was not allowed because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom 6. The same again 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. R. 3. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. So late as Henry the Fourth if any Person
Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysins so utterly Dionysins silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 2â—0 The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Tertullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To. inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have
bound to issue out the Writ de Excom Cap. and the Sheriff to imprison the party upon a Certificate from the Bishop But I must humbly leave such things to wiser Judges THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS CHAP. I. THE general Proposition The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as now Exercised in the Church of England is Allow'd and Establish'd by the Laws of the Land Sect. 1. An Account of the Method Page 1. Sect. 2. Mr. Hickeringill ' s Reasoning Noted and Resolv'd p. 2. Sect. 3. The Propositions suggested by M. Hickeringill are these following p. 4. CHAP. II. Our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was not derived from the Pope but from the Crown before the Reformation by Henry the Eighth p. 5. Proof against this Popish principle Sect. 1. From the root and branches of Ecclesiastical Power Donation Investiture Laws p. 6. Sect. 2. Jurisdictionâ— p. 7. Sect. 3 4 5. p. 9 11 12. CHAP. III. King Hen. 8. did not by renouncing the Power pretended by the Pope make 〈◊〉 the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction neither was it void before it was restored by Edw. 6. 2. p. 13. Sect. 2 3. p. 16 20. CHAP. IV. Ecclesiastical Jurisdictition is lawfully exercised without the King's Name or Stile in Processes c. notwithstanding the 1 Edw. 6. 2. p. 22. Sect. 1 2 3. p. 23 24 26. Sect. 4. 1 Edw. 6. 2. Repeal'd appears from practice p. 28. Sect. 5. 1 Edw. 6. 2. Repealed in the Judgment of all the Judges the King and Council p. 31. Sect. 6. Mr. H. Cary ' s Reason to the contrary considered p. 36. CHAP. V. The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. Establishing the High-Commission Court was not the foundation of Ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England against Mr. Hickeringill p. 41. CHAP. VI. How our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England came at first and is at present Establish'd by Law p. 46. Sect. 1. Jurisdiction of the Church in Common Law p. 51. Sect. 2. The Government Ecclesiastical is Establish'd in the Statutes of this Realm p. 54. CHAP. VII Of Canons and Convocations p. 60. The Conclusion p. 64. The Postscript p. 67. The Bookseller to the Reader THE absence of the Author and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some small Errata's to escape the Press The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend and a little charity may forgive R. Royston CHAP. I. The General Proposition THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction As now Exercised in the Church of England is Allow'd and Establish'd by the Laws of the Land SECT I. An Account of the Method AFTER so many hundred years confirmation both by Law and Practice 't is a marvellous thing this should be a question yet of late two worthy Gentlemen treading in the steps of some former Male-contents have ventured to make it one Mr. Edmond Hickeringill and Mr. H. Cary the first in his Book called Naked Truth the Second part the other in his modestly stiled The Law of England And it is to be observed they were both Printed very seasonably for the setling our distractions through the fears and danger of Popery I shall note what they say discover their gross and dangerous mistakes answer and remove their pitiful Objections and then endeavour to satisfie ordinary and honest enquirers both that and how our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands firm and unshaken upon the basis of our English Laws SECT II. Mr. Hickeringill's Reasoning Noted and Resolv'd Mr. Hickeringill is pleased to say that upon the Stat. 1 Eliz. 1. was built the High Commission Court and the Authority of all Canon-makers Synodiâ—al but down came the Fabrick when that Act was Repealed by 17 Car. 1. 11. and 13. Car. 2. 12. Where provision was made by striking at the foundation 1 Eliz. 1. that no more Commissions of that nature be granted any more only the Spiritual Courts by 1â— Caâ— 2. 12. were to be in Statu quo wherein they were 1639. What state no great I 'le warrant you if the Basis on which their Star-Chamber and High-Commission-Court were built be taken away All Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions till Hen. 8. were derived from the Pope as Supream of the Church â— this Head being beheaded the Supremacy was invested in the Crown But 1 Edw. 6. 2. Enacts that all Process Ecclesiastical should be in the Name and with the stile of the King c. So that if there be any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England distinct from his Majesties Day Courts all their Processes must be in the Kings Name c. 'T is true 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed by the 1 Mar. 2. but I care not for that for 't is revived by the Act of repeal 1 Jac. 25. The Clergy in Convocation acknowledged in their Petition that their Ecclesiastical power was at that time taken away So that their present Jurisdiction being not from God that 's certain 't is not from Man because his Majesty has promised 13 Car. 2. 12. never to empower them with any more Commissions to the worlds end But this I do not peremptorily assert I here protest I know not by what Authority we do these things considering the premises and the repealing of 1 Eliz. 1. By the Statute of Hen. 8. all these Ordinary Jurisdictions were cut off and were revived by 1 Edw. 6 upon Conditions only This is the very Naked Truth under his first Query and in his Conclusion and up and down this worthy Book that is such a shabby lawless Logick such a rude and shatter'd way of reasoning as deserves to be reduc'd with a rod and lasht into method and sence and better manners Especially if you single out his false and study begging Prâ—positions fraught with a wretched design of robbing his own Mother in the Kings high way with which he challenges passage to cheat and abuse the Country My business is only to apprehend the Vagabonds and commit them to the justice of some more severe and smarter hand SECT III. The Propositions suggested by Mr. Hickeringill are these following I. That before Hen. 8. all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was derived from the Pope as Mr. Cary p. 6. II. That Hen. 8. when he annex'd the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown he took it wholly away from our Ecclesiastical Ministers III. That the Church had no Jurisdiction after Hen. 8. had annex'd it to the Crown till 1 Edw. 6. 2. IV. That if there be any Ecclesiastical Power in our Church it cannot be executed but in the Name and with the Stile c. of the King according to 1 Edw. 6. 2. V. That all our Ecclesiastical Power was lately founded in 1 Eliz. 1. as it establish'd the High-Commission-Court and that Act being Repeal'd all Ecclesiastical Power was taken away with the Power of that High Commission On a Rock consisting of these Sands stands our mighty Champion triumphing with his Naked Truth but we come now to
those Courts to give Remedy in those Cases Thus stood Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England by Common Law before our Statutes took so much notice of it and our Statutes since whenever they mention it do generally mention it as a Government supposed upon grounds good and firm in Law to have existed before and also then to be in use and to flourish in its present exercise and proceedings in its proper course and Courts 'T is as idle a thing to look in the Statute-books for the beginning of Ecclesiastical Power and its Courts as for the Beginning of Courts-Baron which are such by Common Law as Coke saith or the Court of Marshalsea which as Coke's words are hath its foundation in Common Law or Courts of Copyholders which are such by Custom And for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these Courts because in their original they were not Established by Act of Parliament as well as the legality of the Courts Spiritual these being equally founded in the Ancient usage Custom and Law of England and all taken care for in Magna Charta that ancient Authentick account of our Common Law And why are Ecclesiastical Judges I mean not Bishops only whom Mr. Hickeringill finds in Scripture but Archdeacons Chancellors Officials c. as well Establish'd in their proper power as Coroners High-Constables c. that have the Origine of their Offices before Statutes Have not Ecclesiastical Officers when lawfully invested power as well as they to Act in their proper Jurisdictions by the same Common Law by long ancient and establisht Custom or as the usual word in our Statutes in this very Case is secundum Consuetudines Leges Angliae My Lord Coke saith The Kings Prerogative is a principal part of the Common Law which also flourisheth in this part of it the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction as well as in the Civil State and Government Thus we acknowledge the Ecclesiastical State and External and Coercive Jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the Crown of England by Common Law And I am bold to add that the former cannot easily be Abolish'd and destroy'd I do not say altered without threatning the latter I mean the Crown at least some prejudice to it on which it depends Thus Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands by Common Law on which also most of our Civil Rights depend but we confess it is bounded as my Lord Coke by the same Common Law and in all reason it must be so it being subordinate to the King as Supream who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great Courts of Common Law and is so declared to be by Acts of Parliament Instit p. 1. pag. 344. of my Lord Coke SECT II. The Government Ecclesiastical is Established in the Statutes of this Realm THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being thus found Establisht by Law before the Statute-books were made the Statutes do Establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudic'd man can expect or desire We shall begin with Magna Charta which is Statute as well as Common Law and seems to unite and tye them together This stands at the beginning of our Statute-book and the first thing in this is a grant and establishment for ever of the Rights and Liberties of the Church that must be understood of the Rights and Liberties then in being and among the rest sure the great Right and Liberty of the Churches Power and the free use of her Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Magna Charta it self expounds what it means by holy Church i. e. the Bishops and Ministers of it which King Hen. 8. in the Statute saith is commonly called the Spiritualty and Mr. HIckeringill for all his scoffing knows that the Church of England allows a larger sence of the word Church viz. the Congregation of all faithful men c. And when we call the Clergie or the Governing-part of the Church the Church we use it in a Law-sence and as a term of Law as Acts of Parliament as well as the Civil or Canon-Law do But this by the way 2. When the subsequent Acts of Parliament do so frequently mention the Spiritual Courts and their Jurisdiction this to me is a legal allowance of them and indeed a Tacit or implicit acknowledgment of their more ancient antecedent Power and Common right and liberty by the undoubted Custom i. e. the Common Laws of the Land Yea those very Statutes that look at least obliquely upon them that say they are bounded by the Common Law that do of themselves limit and prohibit the Ecclesiastical Courts in some cases seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their Jurisdiction But 3. More plainly and directly those Acts of Parliament that appear in the behalf of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger and vindicate its Rights and preserve and maintain its Liberties when most in question there have hapned such occasions wherein the Statutes have rescued and replevied the Ecclesiastical Power in all which the Statutes have been thus favourable to it three of late not to mention many formerly 1. Thus when some might imagine that by the alteration made by King Hen. 8. the Bishops and their Power was shaken the Statutes made in his time assure us that it was but to restore the ancient Jurisdiction and not to destroy it that Bishops should be elected and act as formerly especially as Coke noteth by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. it is Enacted That every person chosen invested Consecrated Archbishop or Bishop according to this Act shall do and execute every thing and things as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm without offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown and the Laws and Customs of the Realm at any time heretofore have done Note that this Statute contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. was revived by Queen Eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the Judges thought and judged a full answer to all the Objections against the Churches proceedings contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and by this very Statute 1 Edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed as my Lord Coke observes Rep. 12. 8 9. which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose 2. The second is observed in the time of Phil. and Mar. when the manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 Edw. 6. the Statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words And the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries to be in the same estate for Processe of Suits punishment of crimes and execution of Censures of the Church and knowledge of causes belonging to the same and as large in those points as the said Jurisdiction was the 20 Hen. 8. which Statute of Phil. and Mar. repealed the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since as the Judges resolved in the foresaid Case 4 Jac. but evidently revived by 1 Eliz. 1. Sect. 13. 3. When thirdly the long Parl. 17 Car. 1. had disabled the
must differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Eathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in fid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2 Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church Aud as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observes which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged wiih Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction
and will not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable Condition in the Definition is the Condition which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial Voluntary of Communion but of this I shall say nothing a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. that in a general Council they did forbid all persons under
as universal Pastor But we leave these advantages to give the argument its full liberty and we shall soon see either its Arms or its Heels The Argument must run thus If the Bishop of Rome was the means of the English Churches Conversion then the English Church oweth obedience to him and his Successors We deny both propositions The Minor that the Pope was the means of our first Conversion and the consequence of the Major that if he had been so it would not follow that we now owe obedience to that See For the Minor Bishop Jewel knock'd it down so perfectly at first it was never able to stand since he saith it is certain the Church of Britain We were converted 9 years before Rome Baron An. 35. n. 5. Marg. An. 39. n. 23. Suarez c. 1. 1 Contr. Angl. Eccl. Error now called England received not first the Faith from Rome The Romanists proof is his bare assertion that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britains and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than an hundred years after Christs death Bishop Jewel answers that King Lucius was baptized near 150 years before the Emperor Constantine and the same Constantine the first Christian Emperor was born in this Island and the Faith had been planted here long before either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes or the Greeks or some others which is plain because the King being Christian before requested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those Persons Damianus and Fugatius to Reform the Bishops and Clergy which were here before and to put things into better Order They also urged that as Pope Elutherius in Britain So Saint Gregory in England first planted the Faith by Austin But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this Argument out of Countenance plainly proving out An. 210. An. 212. An. 334. An. 360. An. 400. An. 367. of Tertullian Origen Athanasius Const Emp. Chrisost Theod. that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither See his Defence of his Apol. p. 11. Some would reply that the Faith was utterly rooted out again upon the Invasion of Heathen English 't was not so saith he for Lib. 1. c. 26. lib. 2. c. 2. Beda saith that the Queen of England was christened and that there were then in this Realm Seven Bishops and one Arch-Bishop with other more great Learned Christian men and Galfridus saith there were then in England Seven Lib. 82. 24. Bishopricks and one Arch Bishoprick possessed with very many godly Prelates and many Abbies in which the Lord's People held the Right Religion Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gregory was a special Instrument of God for the further spreading and establishing the Gospel in England and that both Elutherius and this Gregory seem to have been very good men and great Examples both of Piety and Charity to all their Successors in that See and indeed of a truly Apostolical spirit and care though not of Authority but if all History deceive us not that Austin the Monk was far enough from being Saint Augustine But what if it had been otherwise and we The Consequence were indeed first converted by the means of these Popes will it therefore follow that we ought for ever to be subject to the Papacy This is certainly a Non-sequitur only fit to be imposed upon easie and prepared Understandings it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe Disputation and indeed the Roman Adversaries do more than seem to acknowledge as much However the great Arch-Bishop and Primate of Armach hath slurred that silly Consequence Bramhall with such Arguments as find no answer I refer the Reader if need be to his Just Vindication p. 131 132. Where he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives no Title of Jurisdiction and more especially to the prejudice of a former Owner dispossessed by violence or to the subjecting of a free Nation to a Forreign Prelate without or beyond their own consent Besides in more probability the Britains were first converted by the Eastern Church as appeared by our Ancient Customs yet never were subject to any Eastern Patriarch And sundry of our English and Brittish Bishops have converted Forreign Nations yet never pretended thence to any Jurisdiction over them Lastly what ever Title Saint Gregory might acquire by his deserts from us was meerly Personal and could not descend to his Successors But no more of this for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. W. who together with the Catholick Gentleman do plainly renounce this Plea asking Doctor Hammond with some shew of Scorn what Catholick Author ever affirmed it There is no doubt though some other Romanists have insisted upon this Argument of Conversion some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside and we have no reason to keep it up having otherwise work enough upon our hands An end therefore of this first Plea CHAP. IV. Of the Pope's supposed Claim as Patriarch THis Point admits likewise of a quick dispatch by four Propositions and the rather for a reason you will find in the close of our Discourse upon the last of them PROP. I. The Pope was anciently reputed the Western Patriarch Pope a Patriarch To this Dignity he proceeded by degrees the Apostles left no Rule for a Forreigu jurisdiction from one Nation to another But according to the 33 Cannon of the Apostles if they were indeed theirs it behoved the Bishops of every Nation to know him who is their first or Primate and to esteem him as their Head The Adventitious Grandeur which the Ancient Patriarchs afterwards obtained is judged to arise three ways by the Canons of the Fathers the Edicts of Princes or Ancient Custom Upon the last ground viz. of Custom the C. Nice c. 6. Council of Nice setled the Privileges of those three Famous Patriarchal Sees Rome Alexandria and Antioch Saying let Ancient Custom prevail which Custom proceeded from the honour such Churches had as being founded by the Apostles if not rather from the Eminency of the Cities Therefore the Council of Calcedon gives this as a reason of the greatness of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople because they were the Seats of the Emperours PROP. II. The Pope as Patriarch had but a limited Jurisdiction Limited Jurisd 1. A Patriarchate as such is limited especially if the Title restrain it to the West for East North and South are not the West in the same respect 2. It is further evident from the first Number of Patriarchs for if there were more than one of the same Dignity and Jurisdiction they must be threfore limited for a Patriarch as such could have no Jurisdiction over a Patriarch as such for so they were equal par in parem non c. 3. But indeed the first time we hear of three and then of five Patriarchs at once viz. Five Patriarchs of Rome
gross Credulity to believe him contrary to the Authentick History and more undoubted practises of those Times we read saith the Primate of many Legates but certainly they were either no Papal Legates or Papal Legates in those days were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any Legantine Power as it is now understood for we read so much as any one act of Jurisdiction done by them and firmly conclude thence that there Pall. was none But R. C. saith St. Sampson had a Pall from Obj. Rome He had a Pall but t is not proved that he had Sol. it from Rome 't is Certain Arch-Bishops and Patriachs in the Primitive times had Palls which they received not from Rome Besides if he did receive that Pall from Rome in all probability it was after the first six Irin Cam. p. 1. c. 1. hundred years If either according to Cambrensis he was the five and twentieth Arch-Bishop after St. David or according to Hoveden the R. Hoved. an 1199. four and twentieth and then 't is nothing to our present question St. Gregory granted to Austin the use of the Pall saith R. C. the proper badg and sign of Obj. Pall. Archiepiscopal dignity and gave him liberty to ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury This was done at the end of the first six hundred years and therefore not to our present Sol. question However if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Christianity among the Brittains as they say it was very Christianly done of St. Gregory to send Augustine to convert and re-establish the Church among them but none can imagine that by receiving Augustine and his Bishops they intended to submit themselves and Posterity to the See of Rome which when pressed before the Brittains so unanimously rejected Neither indeed could they do it to the prejudice of the ancient Primacy of the Brittains existing long before and confirmed in its independency upon any foreign power For Bede himself as well as all our own Historians makes it most evident that the Brittains had Bishops long before We find the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles Eborius of York Restitutus of London and Adelfius de Civitate Coloniae Lond. and from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod and the Council of Ariminum as appears by Athanasius and others and that they had also an Arch-Bishop or Primate whose ancient seat had been at Caerleon who rejected the Papacy then possessing and defending the priviledge of their freedom from any foreign Jurisdiction This their priviledge was secured to them both by the Nicene Calcedonian and Ephesian Councils Contrary to these Councils if the Pope did intend to give Augustine the primacy over the Brittains it was a plain usurpation Certainly the priviledges of the Brittannick Church returned with its Christianity neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin or he to Gregory Besides Lastly 't is not possible any sober man can imagine that that humble and holy Pope St. Gregory who so much detested if in earnest the very Title of Vniversal Bishop should actually invade the priviledge of the Brittains and If in earnest hazard his own Salvation in his own Judgment when he so charitably designed the Conversion of England by sending Austin hither T. C. saith it appears that Brittain was anciently Obj. subject to the See of Rome For Wilfred Arch-Bishop of York appealed to Rome twice Wilfred and was twice restored to his Bishoprick An 673. We see when this was done Seventy and three Sol. An. 673. years after the first six hundred He appealed indeed but was still rejected notwithstanding the sentence of Rome in his favour for six years together during the Reigns of King Egbert and Alfrid his Son so far is this instance from being a proof of the Popes possession here at that time Yet this is the most famous saith my Lord Bramhall I had almost said the only Appellant from England to Rome that we read of before the Conquest Moreover the Answer of King Alfred to the Alfred spel conc an 705. Popes Nuncio sent hither by the Pope on purpose is very remarkable He told him he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honourable Aspects but he could not give any assent to their Legation because it was against reason that a Person twice Condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter At this time it is apparent neither the Kings of England nor the Councils of English Church-men as my Lord Bramhall expresseth it two Kings successively and the great Councils of the Kingdom and the other Arch-Bishop Theodore with all the prime Ecclesiasticks and the Flower of the English Clergy opposing so many Sentences and Messages from Rome did believe that England was under the Jurisdiction of Rome or ought to be so Yea the King and the Church after Alfred's After Alfred death still made good this Conclusion that it was against Reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes Bull. Malmsbury would suggest that the King and the Arch-Bishop Theodore were smitten with remorse before their deaths for the injury done to Wilfred c. But not the King only but the whole Council not Theodore alone but the whole Clergy opposed the Popes Letter which is enough both to render the dream of Malmsbury a ridiculous Fable and for ever to confirm this truth that England was not then viz. in the six hundred seventy and third Year of Christ under the Jurisdiction of the Pope either actually or in the belief of the Church or Kingdom of England The Latter viz. the non-possession of out belief of the Popes universal Jurisdiction which is so much insisted upon by the Romanists will yet more evidently appear by that which followeth SECT II. No Possession of our Belief ancient VVE have found the Brittains by the good Abbot and two several Synods Not in England we have found the State of England in three successive Kings their great Councils and body of the Clergy refused to yield Obedience both to the Popes Persuasions Injunctions Sentences and Legates Therefore it seems impossible that Brittain or England should then believe either the Popes Infallibility or their obligation to his Jurisdiction or that there was any such thing as the Tradition of either delivered to them by their Ancestors or believed among them Indeed by this one Argument those four great Characters of the Papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever viz. Possession Tradition Infallibility and Antiquity I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland Nor in Scotland too that other great part of our Kings dominions When the Popes Legate more than Math. Par. in H. 3. an 1238. twice six hundred years after Christ viz. about 1238. entred Scotland to visit the Churches there Alexander
Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus in his contraction of Baronius relates it as his positive Ad an 325. n. 42. Opinion that he rejected all but twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious So that it will bear no further contest but we may safely conclude the Arabick Canons and consequently this of the Popes Authority is a mere Forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils Vid. â— 20. SECT VI. Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs Cyprian Aug. VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdiction in England in the Primitive Ages of the Church but indeed very much to the contrary But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons We are now to examine whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended In the mean time not doubting but that it is a thing most evident that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons and the Canons have declared and indeed been practised against the Pope But what Catholick Practice is found on Record that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith either in England or any part of Christendom Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals or Visitations Yea can it be imagined that our English Ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge and how it was insisted on in barr of the universal Pastorship by their friends the Eastern Church from whom they in likelihood received the Faith and with whom they were found at first in Communion about the observation of Easter and Baptism and in practice divers from the Church of Rome But one great point of practice is here pitcht Obj. upon by Baronius and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election deposing and restoring of Patriarchs which they say he did as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs and consequently of the whole Church But where hath he done these strange feats Sol. Certainly not in England And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else But to each Branch 1. 'T is urged that the Popes Confirmation Confirm Patriarchs is required to all new elected Patriarchs Admit it but the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus Dr. Still de Marca fully answers Baronius and indeed every body else that this was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion De conc l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration If any force be in this Argument then the Bishop of Carthage had power Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome because he and other African Bishops Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers it self Leo himself tells us that it was Ep. 38. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World Yet it is not to be omitted that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarchs Consecration depended not upon Consec depends not on Confirmation the Confirmation or indeed Consent of the Pope of Rome Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters that did not hinder them from the Execution of their Office Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antloch though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively who used all importunity with the Emperor that he might be displaced yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and Communicate with him he was allowed and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome At last the Bishop of Rome severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor yielded and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him But where was the Popes power either to make or make void a Patriarch while this was in Practice 2. Doth Practice better prove the Popes Deposing Patriarchs power to depose unworthy Patriarchs The contrary is evident for both before and after the Council of Nice according to that Council the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in Provincial Councils and the Pope had it not till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius as P. de Marca abundantly proves Vid. de Concord l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also that the Council of Sardica it self did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than Obj. eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope Sol. Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael Well chosen saith Doctor Still a Popes Testimony in his own Cause And such a one as was then in Controversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople and so late too as the Ninth Century is when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it Yet for all this this Pope on such an occasion and at that time did not say that the Patriarchs mention'd by him were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority but not Ejected Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis without his Consent and his design was only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Obj. Bishop of Jerusalem No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod Sol. at Rome to Jerusalem who offered not by the Popes Authority to depose him as should have have been proved but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops were Called by whom he was deposed besides Binius himself Tâ—m 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Restoring Patriarchs Popes power to restore such as were deposed The only Instance in this Case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius and indeed to little purpose T is true Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops Julius never pleads his Power to depose Patriarchs but that his consent for the sake of Vnity should also have been first desired and that
so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops Vid. P. de Marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6. But saith Dr. Still when we consider with what heat and stomach this was received by the P. 401. Q. ac Eastern Bishops how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings than they had with theirs When they say that the Pope by this Vsurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed You see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Popes power of Restoring Bishops to be acknowledged by the whole Church Sure so far the Churches practice abroad could not prevail to settle his right of Jurisdion in the English Faith especially considering the Practice of our own Church in opposing the Letters and Legates of Popes for six years together for the Restoring of Arch-Bishop Wilfred by two of our own successive Kings and the whole State of England Ecclesiastical and Civil as appeared above Moreover St. Cyprian professeth in the Council of Carthage neque enim quisquam c. for no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops or driven his Fellow Bishops to a necessity of Obedience Particularly relating to Stephen then Bishop An. 258. n. 24. of Rome as Baronius himself resolves But upon a matter of Fact St. August gave his St. August own judgment both of the Popes Power and Action in that known case of the Donatists First they had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops 2. Forti non debuit yet perhaps Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church ought not to ufurp to himself this Judgment which had been determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate 3. St. Augustine proceeds and what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole cause So that upon the whole 't is easily observed that in St. Augustines judgment both the Right and the Power by which the Pope as the rest proceeded was to be resolved to the Emperor as a little before ad cujus curam to whose care it did chiefly belong de qua rationem Deo redditurus est of which he was to give account to God Could this consist with the belief of the Popes universal Pastorship by Divine Right if there can possibly after so clear evidence need Vid. Dr. Ham. disp p. 398. c. Still Rationale p. 405. more to be said of St. Augustines judgment in this it is only to refer you to the Controversies between the African Bishops and the Bishop of Rome in case of Appeals SECT VII Not the Sayings of Ancient Popes or Practice Agatho Pelagius Gregory Victor VVE can find nothing in the ancient Canons or ancient practice to ground Popes claimed a belief of the Popes Authority in England upon yet sure Popes themselves claimed it and used Expressions to let us know it Were it so indeed experience tells us how little Popes are to be believed in their own cause and all reason persuades us not to believe them against the Councils and Practice of the Church and the judgment of the Fathers But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest as to confess against themselves and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness The Popes universal headship is not to be believed from the words of Pope Agatho in his Agatho Letter to the Emperor where St. Paul stands as high as St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. To. 2. p. 61. B. both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles Besides he expresly claimed only the Western Patriarchate But Pope Pelagius the Second is more plain Pelagius and home to Rome it self Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus the Pope of Decret p. 1. dis 99. n. 10. Rome is not to be called universal Bishop This was the opinion of that Pope of Rome himself as it is cited out of his Epistle and put into the Body of the Law by Gratian now one would think that the same Law denied the Power that denied the Title properly expressing that Power How triflingly doth S. W. object these words are not found in the Council of Carthage while they are found in the Corpus Juris the Law now of as much force at Rome as that Council 'T is weaker to say they are Gratians own Addition seeing his Addition is now Law and also proved to be the Sense of the Pope Pelagius in his Epistle he saith let none of the Patriarchs ever use the name of Vniversal applying in the conclusion to himself being then Pope as one of that Number and so if he were either Pontifex Maximus or a Patriarch and neither himself nor any Patriarck might be Dr. Ham. disp disp p. 418 419. called Vniversalis then sure nothing was added by him that said in his Title to the fourth Chapter as Gratian did Nec etiam Pontifex not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Vniversal Bishop But what shall be said to Saint Gregory who Gregory in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria tells him that he had prohibited him to call him Vniversal Father that he was not to do Epis ex Reg. l. 8. indic 1. c. 30. c. 4. ind 13. c. 72 76. it that reason required the contrary that it 's derogatory to his Brethren that this honour had by a Council that of Calcedon been offered to his Predecessors but refused and never used by any Again higher he tells Mauritius fidenter dico who ever calls himself Vniversal Priest or L. 7. Ep. 30. desires to be so called is by his pride a Forerunner of Antichrist his pride is an Indication of Antichrist approaching as he saith to the Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Empress l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea an Imitation of none but the Devil endeavouring to break out to the top of Singularity as he saith to John himself yea elsewhere he calls this Title the name of Blasphemy and saith that those that Ibid. Ep 32 40. consent to it do fidem perdere destroy the Faith A strong Title that neither Saint Gregory nor as he saith any one of his Predecessors no Pope that went before him would ever accept of and herein saith he I plead not my own Ibid. Ep. 32. cause but the cause of God of the whole Church of the Laws the Venerable Councils the Commands of Christ which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of Vniversal Bishop Now can any one imagine except one prejudiced as S. W. that the Power is harmless when the Title that doth barely express it is so develish a thing Can any one imagine that Saint Gregory knew himself to be that indeed which in Word he so much
it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church or any more than that qualified sence of Vigorius before mentioned because other Patriarchs had the same Title and we see no reason to believe that that Council intended to subject themselves and all Patriarchs to the Authority of the Western Pope contrary to their great design of advancing the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome as appears by their 16 Sess Can. 28. and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo. Thus the bare Title is no Argument and by what hath been said touching the grandure of the Roman Empire and the answerable greatness and renown of the Roman Church frequent recourse had unto it from other Churches for counsel and assistance is of no more force to conclude her Supremacy nor any matter of wonder at all Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases not only a renowned Lawyer Physician but Divine shall have great resort and almost universal addresses An honest and prudent Countryman shall be upon all Commissions the Church of Rome was then famous both for Learning Wisdom Truth Piety and I may add Tradition it self as well as greatness both in the eye of the world and all other Churches and her Zeal and care for general good keeping peace and spreading the grace of the Gospel was sometimes admirable And now no wonder that Applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither which at first were received and answered with Love and Charity though soon after the Ambition of Popes knew how to advance and hence to assume Authority From this we see it was no great venture Iren. l. 3. c. 3. how ever A. C. Term it for Arch-Bishop Laud to grapple with the Authority of Irenaeus who saith to this Church meaning Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique should have recourse in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata estâ—ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio His Lordship seems to grant the whole Rome being then the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Authority than any other yet not the Head of the Church Vniversal this may suffice without the pleasant criticizing about undique with which if you have a mind to be merry you may entertain your self in Dr. Still p. 441. c. But indeed A. C. is guilty of many Mistakes in reasoning as well as criticizing he takes it for granted that this Principality is attributed by Irenaeus here to Rome as the Church not as the City 2. That the necessity arising hence was concerning the Faith and not secular Affairs neither of which is certain or in likelihood true vid. Dr. Still p. 444. Besides if both were granted the necessity is not such as supposeth Duty or Authority in the faithful or in Rome but as the sense makes evident a necessity of expedience Rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that Tradition about which that dispute was Lastly the Principality here implies not proper Authority or Power to decide the Controversie one kind of Authority it doth imply but not such as A. C. enquired for not the Authority of a Governor but of a Conservator of a Conservator of that Truth that being made known by her might reasonably end the quarrel not of an absolute Governour that might command the Faith or the Agreement of the Dissenters This is evident 1. Because the Dispute was about a matter of Fact whether there was any such Tradition or not as the Valentinians pretended 2. Because Irenaeus refers them to Rome under this reason conservata est the Apostolical Traditions are kept there being brought by the faithful undique thither and therefore brought thither because of the more Principality of the City all persons resorted thither Lastly It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory Obj. Eph. 65. ind 2. doth say that if there be any fault in Bishops it is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that then upon the account of Humility all were his Equals Indeed this smells of his ambition and design Sol. before spoken of but if there be any truth in it it must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself records and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper Primate or Patriarch to judge him also with the proceeding then before him and suppose Complaint to the Emperor and the Emperor's subjecting the Cause to the Apostolical See as that Cause was by Saint Gregory's own Confession However what he seems here to assume to his own See he blows away with the same breath denying any ordinary Jurisdiction and Authority to be in that See over all Bishops while he supposes a fault necessary to their subjection and that while there is no fault all are equall which is not true where by a lawful standing ordinary Government there is an eternal necessity of Superiority and Inferiority But of this I had spoken before had I thought as I yet do not that there is any weight or consequence in the words Further Evidence that the Ancient Popes themselves though they might thirst after it did not believe that they were Vniversal Bishops and Monarks over the whole Church and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner as to make the World believe it I say further evidence of this ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Affairs Pope Leo begged the Emperor Theodosius with tears that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would Command not permit a Council to be held in Italy that sure was not to signifie his Authoritative desires That Instance of Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the Emperor is as pertinent as the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with praise we admire your Conc. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. F. purpose well pleasing to God not to the Pope and for these Commands of yours we are rejoyced and with groans give thanks to God and many such Doctor Hammond saith might be afforded Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining Causes several times as he himself confesseth from the Emperor as we shewed before Hence Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius you are the Vicar of Christ the same in effect which is contained in the Laws of Edward the Confessor And Pope Vrban the Second entertained our Arch-bishop Anselm in the Council of Bar with the Title of the Pope of another World or as some relate it the Apostle of another World and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced Malm. pro. ad lib. de gest pont Angl. Now when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge that the Civil Magistrate had power to command the assembling of general Councils and to command Popes themselves to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes when they acknowledged the King of England
the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celastine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall forbear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possesion in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in fide Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Tâ—â— but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this
kind ought to begin ne◠Christs Time and he that hath begun it later unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an Ancient Possession is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical Good Night S. W. Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tractu temporis non Convalescit is a Rule in the Civil Law Yea whatever Possession the Pope got afterwards was not only an illegal Vsurpation but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus and thereby Condemned as Schismatical CHAP. VII The Pope had not full Possession here before Hen. 8. 1. Not in Augustine's Time II. Nor After 'T Is boldly pleaded that the Pope had Possession of the Supremacy in England for nine hundred years together from Augustine till Hen. 8. 〈◊〉 no King on Earth hath so long and so clear prescription for his Crown To which we answer 1. That he had not such Possession 2. If he had 't is no Argument of a just Title SECT I. Not in Austin's Time State of Supremacy questioned VVE shall consider the Popes Supremacy here as it stood in and near St. Augustine's time and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8. 1. We have not found hitherto that in or about the time of Augustine Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Pope had any such power in England as is pretended Indeed he came from Rome but he brought no Mandate with him and when he was come he did nothing without the King's licence at his arrival he petitions 〈◊〉 King the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet till his further pleasure was known he obeyed afterward the King gave him licence to preach to Bed l. 1. c. 25. his Subjects and when he was himself converted majorem praedicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed largly to subject all the Priests of Brittain under Augustine and to give him power to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but 't is one thing to claim another thing to possess for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King who had not the twentieth part of Brittain and it appears that after both Saint Gregory and Austine were dead there were but one Arch bishop and two Bishops throughout the Brittish Islands of the Roman Communion Indeed the Brittish and Scotch Bishops were Bed l. 2. c. 2 c. 4. many but they renounced all Communion with Rome as appeared before We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over Preachers his commending sometimes Arch-Bishops when desired to us his directions to fill up vacant Sees all which and such like were Acts of Charity becoming so eminent a Prelate in the Catholick Church but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy 'T is possible Saint Milet as is urged might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed and that they were worthy of our acceptance and were accepted accordingly but 't is certain and will afterwards appear to be so that such Decrees were never of force here further that they were allowed by the King and Kingdom 'T is not denied but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates and Bulls too yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of neither were the Legates themselves or those Bulls of any Authority without the King's Consent Some would argue from the great and flattering Titles that were antiently given to the Pope but sure such Titles can never signifie Possession or Power which at the same time and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles was really and indeed denied him But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedo◠hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt the Pope and the King of England in which such things are not all concerned The plain question is who was then the Political Head of the Church of England the King or the Pope or more immediately whether the Pope then had possession of the Supremacy here in such things as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation and the Pope still challengeth and they are such as these 1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes 2. A Dispensative Power above and against the Laws of the Church 3. A liberty to send Legates and to hold Legantine Courts in England without Licence 4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects 5. The Patronage of the English Church and Investitures of Bishops with power to impose Oaths upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance 6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical Livings and a power to impose upon them what Pensions or other Burthens he pleaseth 7. The Goods of Clergy-men dying Intestate These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England and our Kings and Laws and Customs deny him as will appear afterwards in due place for this place 't is enough to observe that we find no foot-steps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England in or about Augustine's time As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeals it hath appeared before that it being rejected by two Kings successively by the other Arch-Bishop and by the whole Body of the English Clergy sure 't is no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time and needs no further answer SECT II. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. Eight Distinctions the Question stated IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early yet for many Ages together they were found in his Possession and so continued without interruption till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope and possest himself and his Successors of them Whether it were so or not we are now to examine and least we should be deceived with Colours and generalities we must distinguish carefully 1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity and Supremacy of Power the only thing disputed 2. Betwixt a Judgment of direction resulting from the said Primacy and a Judgment of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy 3. Betwixt things claimed and things granted and possessed 4. Betwixt things possessed continually or for some time only 5. Betwixt Possession partial and of some lesser Branches and plenary or of the main body of Jurisdiction 6. Betwixt things permitted of curtesie and things granted out of duty 7. Betwixt incroachment through craft or power or interest or the temporary Ossitancy of the People and Power grounded in the Laws enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace 8. Lastly betwixt quiet possession and interrupted These Distinctions may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary but I find there is need of them all if we deal with a subtle one For the Question is not touching
Kings leave First he was told by the Bishops as well as Lay-Lords that it was a thing unheard of and altogether against the use of the Realm for any of the great men especially himself to presume any such thing without the Kings Licence Notwithstanding he would and did go but what followed His Bishoprick was seiz'd into the Kings hand And the Pope durst not or thought not good to give him either Consilium or Auxilium as Sir Rog. Twisd p. 11. 12. makes appear out Eadmer p. 20 26 38 39 53. In the dispute the King told Anselm the Pope had not to do with his Rights and wrote that free Letter we find in Jorvalensis Col. 999 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the Pope the King sent another letter by Anselm himself to Rome who spake plainly his Master nec amissione Eadem 73. 13. Regni c. for the loss of his Kingdom he would not lose the investiture of his Churches But Anselm as Arch-Bishop took the Oath Obj. that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall which allowed his Power to receive Appeals 'T is true but Pope Paschalis himself who Ans devised that Oath acknowledgeth that it was as Anselm signified to him not admitted but wondred at and lookt on as a strange innovation both by the King and the great men of the Kingdom Baron an 1102. nu 8. The King pleaded the Fundamental Laws and customs of the Land against it it is a custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father that no Pope may be appealed unto without the Kings licence He that takes away the customs of the Kingdom doth violate the Power and Crown of the King And 't is well noted by Arch-Bishop Bramhall Malms l. 1. degest Pont. Ang. that the Laws established by his Father viz. William the Conqueror were no other than the Laws of Edward the Confessor that is to say the old Saxon Laws who had before yielded to the â—â— Hen. 2. request of his Barons as Hoveden notes to confirm those Laws But though Anselm had obliged himself by the said Oath to the Pope yet the rest of the Bishops refused the Yoke and thereupon Malmsâ— tells us in his c. that in the execution of these Malm. ibid. things all the Bishops of England did deny their Suffrage to their Primate Consequently the Vnanimity of the whole Realm appeared in the same Point in the Reign of this Kings Grandchild in the Statute of Clarendon confirming the former Brittish Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. English custom not only by their consents but their Oaths wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to Rome This Statute of Clarendon was made when Popery seemed to be at the height in England It was made to confirm the Customs and Liberties of Henry the Seconds Predecessors that is to say as the words of the Statute are his Grandfather Henry the first Son of the Conqveror and other Kings Now the Customs of England are our common Laws and the customs of his Predecessors were the Saxon Danish and Norman Laws P. 73. and therefore ought to be observed of all as my Lord Bramhall reasons What these customs were I may shew more largely hereafter at present this one is pertinent All appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop fail to do his duty the last must be to the King to give order for redress that is by fit delegates In Ed. the Thirds time we have a plain Law to 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. the same purpose in these words Whosoever should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any caufe whereof the Cognizance belongeth to the Kings Court or should sue in any foreign Court to defeat any Judgment given in the Kings Court viz. by appealing to Rome they should incur the same penalties and upon the same ground the body of the Kingdom would not suffer Edward the First to to be cited before the Pope 'T is confest that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 't is granted that in case a Bishop erring in Faith and Obj. on Admonition appearing incorrigible ad summos Pontifices the Arch-Bishops vel sedem Apostolicam accusetur which passage as Sir Ro Twisden guesses was inserted afterwards or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope But the same learned Mans Note upon it is Ans P. 32. that this is the only Cause wherein I find any English Law approve a foreign Judicature 'T is plain Anselm's Appeal now on foot was disapproved by the whole Kingdom 't is evident that this Clause was directly repugnant to the Liberties and Customs of the Realm upon which Anselm's Appeal was so ill resented 'T is manifest in those days and after appeals to Rome were not common yea this very Pope Paschalis complains to this King Vos oppressis Apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis Eadm p. 113 3. which was an 1115. and that they were held a cruel intrusion on the Churches Liberty so as at the Assize at Clarendon 1164. this Law if it were so was annulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the Realm the eighth Chapter whereof is wholly spent in shewing the Right of the Kingdom in this point quod non appellaretur for any Cause ad sedem Apostolicam without leave had first from the King and his Officials as Joh. Sarisb interprets Ep. 159. p. 254. Indeed the King did personally yield afterwards an 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Obj. Ecclesiastical Causes But the whole Kingdom four years after would Ans not quit their interest but did again renew the assize of Clarendon 1176. using this close expression Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem Hoved. f. 314. b. 3. terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint stare in curia domini Regis â— legentur c. as Gervase also notes au 1176. Col. 1433. 19. Accordingly was the practice during K. Rich. the seconds time Geffrey Arch-Bishop of York was complained of that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome but imprisoned those that made them and though upon that complaint a time was assigned to make his defence to the Pope yet he refused to go because of the Kings Prohibition and the indisposition of the Air. After this upon a difference with the King the Arch-Bishop went to Rome and made his peace with the Pope and returns but the King offended with it committed the care even of the spirituals of his Arch-Bishoprick to others till he had reconciled himself to the Crown which was nere two years after about 1198. After this again he received complaint from Innocentius III. non excusare te potes c. Thou canst not excuse thy self as thou oughtest that Hov. an 1201. thou art ignorant
away with him After Paulinus there are five in the Catalogue of York expresly said to have wanted it and Wilfred was one of them yet are reputed both Vid. Twisd ibid. Arch-Bishops and Saints and of others in that series it is not easie to prove they ever used it nor Adilbaldus till the fourth year after his Investiture And Gregory the Great saith that it ought not to be given nisi fortiter Postulanti What this Honorary was anciently seems uncertain but 't is most certain it could evacuate the Kings Legal and natural Patronage of our Church or discharge the Bishops from their dependance on and Allegiance to his Crown 'T is true indeed when Pope Nicolaus could not deny it he was graciously pleased to grant this Patronage to Edward the Confessor Vobis posteris c. committimus advocationem c. We Baron an 1059. n. 23. commit the Advowson of all the Churches of England to you and your Successors Kings of England It might have been replied Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium quod ex Paterno jure susceperat praebuit as the Emperors Advocate said This is too mean as well as too remote a spring of our Kingly power in the Church of England though it might ad hominem sufficiently supersede one would think all Papal practises against so plain and full a grant if any thing passed by it certainly it must be that very power of Advowson that the Popes afterwards so much pretended and our Laws mentioned were made on purpose to oppose them in We see no reason therefore against the Statute of Hen. 8. so agreeable to the ancient Rights and Laws of this Realm Be it enacted that no person shall be Presented Nominated or Commended to the Pope to or for the dignity of an Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm nor shall send or procure thence for any manner of Bulls Briefs Palls or other things requisite for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop all such viz. Applications and Instruments shall utterly cease and no longer be used within this Realm and such as do contrary to this Act shall run in danger of the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire H. 8. 25 20. CHAP. XIII Of Peter Pence and other Moneys formerly paid to the Pope UPon Complaint by Parliament in 25 Hen. 8. 21. Henry the Eighth's Reign of intolerable exactions of great Sums of money by the Pope as well in Pensions Censes Peter-pence Procurations c. and for infinite sorts of Bulls c. otherwise than by the Laws and Customs of the Realm should be permitted It was enacted that no Person should thence-forth pay any such Pensions Peter pence c. but that all such payments should thence-forth clearly surcease and never more be levied taken or paid and all Annates or First-Fruits and Tenths of 25 Hen. 8. 20. Arch-Bishops and Bishops were taken away and forbidden to be paid to the Pope the year before Our Payments to the Court of Rome seem to have been of four sorts Peter-pence First-Fruits and Tenths Casual for Palls Bulls c. and extraordinary Taxations briefly of each 1. For Peter-pence the only Ancient payment Peter-pence it was at first given and received as an Alms Eleemosina Beati Petri saith Paschalis 2. Ep. Hen. 1. apud Eadm p. 113. 27. Perhaps rendred out of Gratitude and Reverence to the See of Rome to which England was no doubt frequently obliged for their care and Council and other assistances and by continuance this Alms and gratitude obtained the name of Rent and was Metaphorically called sometimes Tributum but never anciently understood Vid. Twisd p. 75. to acknowledge the Pope as Superior Lord of a Lay-fee But when the Pope changed Advice into Precept and Counsel into Law and Empire and required Additions with other grievous Exactions unto his Peter-pence it was a proper time to be better advised of our selves and not to encourage such a wild Vsurpation with the continuance of our Alms or gratitude This Alms was first given by a Saxon King but by whom it is not agreed but that there was no other payment besides this made to Rome before the year 1246. appears for that though there was much complaint and controversie about our payments we find the omission of no payment instanced in but of that duty only neither do the Body of our Kingdom in their Remonstrance to Innocent the Fourth 1246. mention any other as claimed from hence to Rome Yet this payment as it was not from the beginning and as it was at first but an Alms so it was not continued without some interruptions when Rome had given Arguments of sufficient provocation both in the times of William the First and Henry his Son and Henry the Second this latter during the Dispute with Becket and Alex. 3. commanded the Sheriffs through England that Peter-pence should be gathered and kept quousque inde Dominus Rex voluntatem suam praeceperit Historians observe that Edward the Third during the French war gave command that no Peter-pence should be gathered or paid to Rome Stow An. 1365. and the Restraint continued all that Prince's time for his Successor Richard the Second at the beginning of his Reign caused John Wickliff to consider the Point who concludes those payments being no other than Alms the Kingdom was not obliged to continue them longer Vid. Twisden p. 76. than it stood with its Convenience and not to its detriment or Ruine according to the Rule in Divinity extra Casus Necessitatis Superfluitatis Eleemosyna non est in praecepto Indeed in the Parliament held the same year the question was made and a Petition preferred which surely was some kind of disturbance of the payment against them with no effect the King restored them and the payment of them continued till Hen. 8. So much for Peter-pence for the other payments 2. First-Fruits viz. First-Fruits aend Tenths and the Casual payments for Bulls c. they so evidently depend on the Pope's Supremacy for Legislation Jurisdiction and Dispensation that they are justly denied with it however we shall briefly examine the Rise and the Possession of them For the Annates and Tenths which the Pope Clemang Platina Pol. Virg. received from our arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops the Historians agree that England of all Nations never submitted to the full extent of the Papal Commands or Expectations which no doubt was occasioned by the good Laws made here against them There is difference amongst Writers in De Scysm 6. lib. 2. c. 9. whose time the First-Fruits began to be taken Theodoricus a Niem saith Boniface 9. about the Tenth year of his Government was the first that reserved them with whom Platina agrees In vit Bon. 9. de inven Rer. l. 8. c. 2. and Polid. Virgil and many others as Twisden notes and Walsingham reduces them but to 1316. Hist An. 1316. p. 84 85. But the question is how long the Pope quietly
Infer 1. That the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by divine Right or any right at all seeing they opposed it 2. That they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome 3. That they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility 4. That 't is vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either 5. That the Judgment of those 8 general Councils was at least the Judgment and Faith not only during their own times but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as great Authority and how long that was after I leave to themselves to answer 6. That the Canons of those 8 first general Councils being the sence both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority stands condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in profession with the Ancient 7. That this was the Faith of the Catholick Church in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope long after the eight first General Councils is evident by the plain Sence of it in the said Point declared by several Councils in the Ages following as appears both in the Greek and Latin Church a word of both SECT IX The Latin Church Constance Basil Councils c. THe Council of Constance in Germany long after of almost a thousand Fathers An. 1415 Say they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and a General Council representing the whole Church and having immediate power from Christ whereunto obedience is due from all Persons both for Faith and Reformation whether in the Head or Members this was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inviolable in Matters of Faith vid. Surium Concil Const 99. 4. Tom. 3. Conc. Their great Reason was the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine Ordinance as the Council of Calcedon said a thousand years before Now where was necessary Union and Subjection to the Pope where was his Supremacy Jure divino where was Tradition Infallibility or the Faith of the present Church for the Pope's Authority Concil Basil Bin. To. 4. in Conc. Basil initio The Council of Basil An. 1431. decreed as the Council of Constance Pope Eugenius would dissolve them the Council commands the contrary and suspend the Pope concluding that who ever shall question their power therein is an Heretick the Pope pronounceth them Schismaticks in the end the Pope did yield and not dissolve the Council this was the Judgment of the Latine Church above 1400 years after Christ and indeed to this day of the true Church of France and in Henry the Eighth's time of England as Gardner said the Pope is not a Head by Dominion but Order his Authority is none with us we ought not to have to doe with Rome the Common Sence of all in England Bellarmine saith that the Pope's Subjection to De Conc. li. 2. c. 14. General Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastorship 't is Repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter saith Gregory de Valentiâ yet nothing Anal. fid l. 8. c. 14. is more evident than that General Councils did exercise Authority over Popes deposing them and disposing of their Sees as the Council of Constance did three together and always made Canons in opposition to their Pretensions Yea 't is certain that a very great Number if not the greater of the Roman Church it self were ever of this Faith that General Vid. Dr. Hammond's dispute p. 102. Councils are Superior have Authority over give Laws unto and may justly censure the Bishop of Rome Pope Adrian the Sixth and very many other Learned Romanists declared this to be their Judgment just before or near upon the time that Henry the Eighth was declared Supreme in England So much for the Latine Church SECT X. The Greek Church African Can. Synod Carth. Cancil Antiochen The Faith of the Greek Church since THat the Greek Church understood the first General Councils directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy is written with a Sun-beam in several other Councils 1. By the Canons of the African Church The 27th Canon forbids all Transmarine Appeals Can. 27. threatens such as make them with Excommunication makes order that the last Appeal be to the proper Primate or a General Council to the same effect is the 137 Canon and the Notes of Voel upon these Canons put it beyond question that in the Transmarine Appeals Tom. 1. p. 425. they meant those to Rome as it is expressed the Church of Rome and the Priests of the Roman Church 2. Const Concil Antiochen This Council is more plain it saith if any Bishop in any Crime be judged by all the Bishops in the Province he shall be judged in no wise by any Other the Sentence given by the Provincial Bishops shall remain firm Thus the Pope is excluded even in the case of Bishops out of his own Province contrary to the great pretence of Bellarmine ibid. 3. Syn. Carthag This Synod confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice and the Canons of the African Councils and then in particular they decreed ab Vniversis Can. 4. Si Criminosus est non admittatur again 8. if any one whether Bishop or Presbiter that is driven from the Church be received into Communion by another even he that receives him is held guilty of the like Crime Refugientes sui Episcopi regulare Judicium Again if a Bishop be guilty when there is no Synod let him be judged by twelve Bishops Secundum Statuta Veterum Conciliorum the Statutes of the Ancients knew no reserve for the Pope in that Case Further no Clergy-man might go beyond the Seas viz. to Rome without the Advice of his Metropolitan and taking his Formatam vel Commendationem The 28 Canon is positive that Priests and Deacons shall not Appeal ad Transmarina Judicia viz. to Rome but to the Primates of their own Provinces and they add Sicut de Episcopis saepê constitutum est and if any shall do so none in Africa shall receive them and Can. 125. 't is renewed adding the African Councils to which Appeals are allowed as well as to the Primates but still Rome is Barr'd The Sence of the Greek Church since Now when did that Church subject it self to Rome in any Case our Adversaries acknowledge the early contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches in the point of Supremacy where then is the Consent of Fathers or Vniversality of time and place they use to boast of Bellarmine confesseth that An. 381. to the time of the Council of Florence viz. 1140 years the Greek Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome and he confesseth they did so in several general Councils And he doth but pretend that this Church submitted it self to Rome
making that Canon of Priviledges and that the Bishops were compelled thereunto The Synod with a loud voice cryed Joyntly we were not compelled to subscribe After every one severally protest I did subscribe willingly and freely and the Acts are ratified and declared to be just and valid and wherein say they we will persist the Legates are instant to have the Act revoked because the Apostolical See is humbled or abased thereto the Fathers unanimously answered the whole Synod doth approve it This clear account we have in Bin. in Concil Calced Act. 16. p. 134 and 137. Bellarmine saith that the Pope approved all the Decrees of this Council which were de fide and doth not Bellarmine argue that the Popes Superiority is Jure divino and the present Church of Rome hold that his Supremacy is a point necessary to Salvation How comes it to pass that he would not approve this Decree or how can they esteem this Council general and lawful and swear to observe the decrees of it when 't is found guilty of Heresie in so great a point as the Popes Primacy But to end with this the very Title it self of Bishop of the Vniversal Church in the stile of those Ages signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy Vniversal Bishop of the Church seem'd a dangerous Title importing universal Power over it and was therefore so much abhorred by Pope Gregory But the Title of Bishop of the Vniversal Church signified the care of the whole Church to which as Origen saith every Bishop is called Therefore Aurelius Fortunatianus Augustine are called Bishops of the Vniversal Church and many in the Greek Church had the same honourable Titles given them which signified either that they professed the Catholick Faith or as Bishops had a general regard to the good of the Catholick Church But your own Jesuite confesseth that Pelagius Azorius and Gregory both Popes have born witness that no Bishop of Rome before them did ever use the Stile of Vniversal Bishops However Vniversal Patriarch makes as great a sound as Universal Bishop yet that Title was given to John Bishop of Constantinople by the Bishops of Syria Cod. Authent Constitu 3. The custody of the Vine i. e. the whole Obj. Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 13. Church the Council saith is committed to the Pope by God True so that Primitive Pope Elutherius said to Ans Bin. Epist Eleuth the Bishops in France the whole Catholick Church is committed to you St. Paul also had the care of all the Churches but that is high which Greg. Nazian saith of Athanasius that he having the presidence of the Church of Alexandria may be said thereby to have the Government of the whole Christian World Sai Tom. 16. in 1 Pet. 5. Now saith a Learned man we are compelled to ask with what Conscience you could make such Objections Bishop Morton in good earnest to busie your Adversaries and seduce your Disciples withal whereunto you your selves could so easily make answer We find no further objection against the other Obj. Councils worthy Notice Bellarmine argues the Popes Supremacy because the Synod of Const being the Fifth General Council complemented the Pope as his Obedient Servants nos inquit Praeses Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus c. Bell. lib. 2. de pont c. 13. Though this very Council both opposed accused and condemned the Pope for Heresie which could not possibly consist with their acknowledgment of his Supremacy or Infallibility The same is more evident in the sixth seventh and eighth General Councils condemning the Persons and Judgments of and giving Laws to the Bishops of Rome to which nothing material can be objected but what hath been more than answered Binius indeed in his Tract de Prim. Eccl. Rom. gives us the sayings of many ancient Popes for the Supremacy pretended especially in two points The Power of Appeals challenged by Pope Anacetus Zepherinus Fabianus Sixtus and Symachus and Exemption of the first See from censure or judgment by any other power claimed by Pope Sylvester and Gelasius But these are Testimonies of Popes themselves in their own cause and besides both these points have been found so directly and industriously determined otherwise by their own General Councils that further answer is needless CONCLUSION THus Objections being removed the Argument from the Councils settles firm in its full strength and seeing both the ancient Fathers and the Catholick Church have left us their sence in the said Councils and the sence of the Councils is also the received and professed faith of the present Church of Rome it self who can deny that the Catholick Church to this day hath not only not granted or acknowledged but even most plainly condemned the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea who can doubt but our Argument against it is founded upon their own Rock the very constitution of the Papacy it self as before hath appeared Therefore the Popes claim upon this Plea as well as upon any or all the former is found groundless and England's Deliverance from his foreign Jurisdiction just and honest as well as happy Which our good God in his wise and merciful Providence ever Continue Preserve and Prosper Amen Amen A Serious ALARM to all sorts of ENGLISH-MEN against POPERY from Sence and Conscience their OATHS and their INTEREST 1. THe Kings of England seem bound not only by their Title but in Conscience of their Ministry under God to defend the Faith and the Church of Christ within their Dominions against Corruption and Invasion and therefore against Popery They are also bound in Honour Interest and Fidelity to preserve the Inheritance and Rights of the Crown and to derive them entire to their Heirs and Successors and therefore to keep out the Papal Authority And lastly 't is said they are bound by their Oaths at their Coronation and by the Laws of Nature and Government to maintain the Liberties and Customs of their people and to govern them according to the Laws of the Realm and consequently not to admit the foreign Jurisdiction of the Pope in prejudice of our ancient Constitution our common and Ecclesiastical Laws our natural and legal Liberties and Properties 2. The Nobility of England have anciently held themselves bound not only in honour but by their Oaths Terras honores Regis c. to preserve together with the King the Territories and honours of the King omni fidelitate ubique most faithfully and to defend them against Enemies and Foreigners meaning especially the Pope of Rome 'T is expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself in Edw. 1. Reign to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown the State of the Realm the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Progenitors against all foreign Usurpation toto posse totis viribus to the utmost of their power and with all their might adding We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possum â—â— nec debemus though our Soveraign
the point though against the hair for though he toll on his weak and prejudic'd readers to their great hazard in putting their whole case upon this one point whether the Court can shew the broad Seal c. yet when he comes home to the matter he tells them that the aforesaid Statute of Edw. 6. not being mentioned by King James's Act of repeal and expresly revived is thought not to be of force so that a citation in the Bishops own name may at this day be good in Law Law of Engl. c. 2. p. 12. Mr. Hickeringill should have taken the advice of this his friend a great Lawyer certainly that entitles his minute and thin piece the Law of England SECT III. Mr. CARY indeed mistakes the Statute for it is the first of King James 25. not the fourth yet we have his learned opinion that Citations in the Bishops own name may at this day be good in Law and for ought I know his reason for it may be good too viz. because the Statute of Queen Mary especially that of the first and second of Phil. and Mar. c. 8. is not in the said Act of repeal expresly revived according to the express words of the Act vid. 1 Eliz. sect 13. But O Mr. Cary though we have here your opinion and your reason where was your Conscience where was your kindness to your beloved dissenting Clients when you dared to betray them to the Devil and the Gaoler to speak in Mr. Hickeringill's language a far heavier sentence than Curse ye Meroz and that upon no other ground that I can find in your English Law but this Statute only which yet for the reason aforesaid you say is thought not to be of force and though you say the Bishops may at this day send forth Citations in their own names by Law yet your grave advice to those friends is this When you are Cited appear and demand whether they have any Patent from the King for the same and under his great Seal or no if they will not shew you by what Authority protest against their proceedings and go your way i. e. the way of disobedience contempt the way to the Gaol and the Devil but that 's no matter he hath shewed his spite to Ecclesiastical Authority against his own Law and Conscience he was not to satisfie a doubt but a lust and his confidence is as able to secure the deluded people from the danger of contempt of the Kings Ecclesiastical Courts as his wise Notion of Magna Charta c. 14. from paying their Tithes See this point excellently and fully argued on both sides and the Judges c. Opinion and Reasons silencing this Objection in King James's time Coke Rep. 12. p. 7 8 9. SECT IV. 1 Edw. 6. 2. repeal'd appears from practice II. A further Argument that the Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repeal'd is taken from the uninterrupted practice both of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Kings of England and their own immediate Courts contrary to it and I think it is a rule in Law that in doubtful cases Lex currit cum praxi 1. The Ecclesiastical Judges have ever since the Repealing Act of Queen Mary before and since the Statute of Queen Eliz. and King James called Statutes of repeal uncontroulably proceeded in their own names and not expresly in the name or stile of the King let one instance be shewn to the contrary then who can imagine without a fancy possest that the Crown and States of the Realm should intend so great an alteration in the Ecclesiastical government and that in the behalf of the supremacy and for the Rights of the Crown as is pretended by reviving that Act of 1 Edw. 6 and yet neither then not even since expect a conformity to and observance of it Were Queen Eliz. and King James so easie and careless of their Crowns as this would make them were all the Bishops who were concerned in making those Acts of Repeal and all Ecclesiastical Judges ever since so dull and stupid as not to know the force of those Acts not to mind either their duty or their safety in so great and hazardous a point as some would have it of a praemunire or so fool-hardy as to bear against the Crown it self on which alone they know they depend against plain Acts of Parliament in the midst of froward and watching enemies on every side them who can think it I must conclude that if it be possible that the Act of Queen Mary should be repeal'd in this point either by Queen Eliz. or King James 't is more than ever the Law-makers themselves thought of understood or intended 2. For secondly the practice of the Crown that was in the first place highly concern'd in that Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. hath been ever since the Act of Queen Mary that repeal'd it directly contrary to it and in a very great point or flower of the supremacy manag'd it self ever since just as it did before that Act of Edw. 6. and as I said directly contrary to it therefore 't is past all doubt but that the sence of the Queen and Kings of England and the sence of those great Lawyers and States-men that direct the Crown in such great affairs is evident that the Statute of Edw. 6. stands repealed and is not revived for in that Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. 't is expresly enacted that whereas elections of Bishops by Deans and Chapters upon a Writ of Congee d'eslire seeming derogatory and prejudicial to the Kings prerogative Royal for a due reformation thereof be it enacted that from henceforth no such Congee d'eslire be granted not election made but c. yet ever since Congee d'eslires have been granted and such elections thereupon have been returned and accepted 3. The Kings immediate Courts so far as they have been concerned with Jurisdiction of the Church and the Kings Civil Judges therein have ever since own'd and as occasion hath required ratified fortified and made effectual all our Ecclesiastical proceedings ever since though not acted in the Kings name contrary to the said Statute though 't is a great part of their places and offices to secure the Prerogative against all Invasion especially of the Church thus by their constant practice it appears that they never understood that Statute of Edw. 6. to be in force since Queen Mary repealed it Was the whole Kingdom so long and in so deep a sleep to be awakened by such impertinent and little barkings SECT V. 1 Edw. 6. 2. Repealed in the Judgment of all the Judges the King and Council THE objection from the 1 Edw. 6. is no new light of Mr. Hickeringill's we find it busie in the time of King Charles the first Anno 1637. and by the Kings Proclamation it seems it had troubled the Kingdom before as indeed it had in the Fourth of King James In that year 1637. upon an order out of the Star-chamber the learned Judges were commanded to give their
opinion in this matter and they all met together and deliberately and distinctly and fully declared that the 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed and is not in force and that the Ecclesiastical Judges did in all the points called in question act legally and as they ought to do hereupon the King and Council being satisfied issued forth the said Proclamation to silence and prevent all such objections against Ecclesiastical Judges Courts and proceedings for the future and the judgment of the Judges under their hands was inrolled in the Courts of Exchequer Kings Bench Common Pleas c. as Law where any one may find it that desires to be further satisfied in the truth of it 2. Hence I argue that that Statute of 1 Edw. 6. is repealed in Law at least that the subjects ought so to esteem it until they have the judgment of the Judges declared otherwise yea though those Judges which is profane to imagine did erre in that their Declaration through ignorance or fear of the High Comission as Mr. Hickeringill meekly insinuates p. ult For the Law is known to the subject either by the letter or by the Interpretation of it and if the letter of the Law be not plain or be doubtful we take the Interpretation of it from such as by law are of right to make the Interpretation to be the law and this I think is the Common Law of England and believe that Mr. Cary himself thinks so too 3. Now who is or can be thought to be the most proper Interpreter of a doubtful Law but the King with his Council by all the Judges of the Land especially if that law concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Crown as the law in question plainly doth But the King himself with his Council by all the Judges of the Land hath solemnly declared that the 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed and not of force this is a legal interpretation of the law this is law and ought so to be taken rebus sic stantibus by all the subjects of England whatever little men that talk of the law in their own narrow and private sentiments presume to vent to the scandal of the people the trouble of the Kingdom and slander of the Church and Ecclesiastical proceedings and indeed it would be an insufferable sawciness to say no worse for any Ecclesiastical Judge to act by a law that is none against the so solemn declaration of the King the Council and all the Judges of the Land and this is the case I shall therefore trouble if not pleasure my reader with the Declaration of the Judges and the sence of the King and Council of it Primo Julii 1637. The Judges Certificate concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction May it please your Lordships ACcording to your Lordships Order made in his Majesties Court of Star-Chamber the Twelfth of May last we have taken consideration of the particulars wherein our Opinions are required by the said Order and we have all agreed That Processes may issue out of the Ecclesiastical Courts and that a Patent under the great Seal is not necessary for the keeping of the said Ecclesiastical Courts or for the enabling of Citations Suspensions Excommunications or other Censures of the Church and that it is not necessary that Summons Citations or other Processes Ecclesiastical in the said Courts or Institutions or Inductions to Benefices or Correction of Ecclesiastical Offences by Censure in those Courts be in the Name or with the Stile of the King or under the Kings Seal or that their Seals of Office have in them the Kings Arms. And that the Statute of primo Edvardi Sexti c. 2 which Enacted the Contrary is not now in force We are also of Opinion that the Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons may keep their Visitations as usually they have done without Commission under the great Seal of England so to do John Brampstone John Finch Humph. Davenport Will. Jones Jo. Dinham Ri. Hutton George Crooke Tho. Trevor George Vernon Ro. Berkley Fr. Crawly Ri. Weston Inrolled in the Courts of Exchequer Kings Bench Common Pleas and Register'd in the Courts of High Commission and Star-Chamber Hereupon followed the Kings Proclamation declaring that the proceedings of his Majesties Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers are according to the Law of the Land as are the words of the Title I shall only transcribe the Conclusion of the Proclamation which you have faithfully in these words AND his Royal Majesty hath thought fit with the Advice of his Council that a publick Declaration of these Opinions and Resolutions of his Reverend and Learned Iudges being agreeable to the Judgment and Resolutions of former times should be made known to all his Subjects as well to Vindicate the legal proceedings of his Ecclesiastial Courts and Ministers from the unjust and Scandalous imputation of invading or entrenching on his Royal Prerogative as to settle the minds and stop the mouths of all unquiet Spirits that for the future they presume not to censure his Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers in these their Iust and Warranted proceedings And hereof his Majesty admonisheth all his Subjects to take Warning as they shall answer the Contrary at their Perils Given at the Court at Lindhurst Aug. 18. in the Thirteenth Year of his Majesties Reign God save the King You may see the Case fully the Reasons on both sides and the Judges determination the Fourth of King James to which this Proclamation may refer Coke Rep. 12. p. 7 8. Now I could almost submit it to Mr. Cary or Mr. Hickeringill himself whether it be fitter or safer for Ecclesiastical Judges to proceed in their Courts as they now do or alter their proceedings and presume upon the King by using his Royal Name and Stile and Arms contrary to all this Evidence and Reason and Law SECT VI. Mr. H. Cary's Reason to the contrary considered BUT Mr. Cary saith He seeth not a drachm of Reason why the Spiritual Courts should not make their Processe in the Kings name as well as the Temporal Courts since those as well as these are the Kings Courts He seems to talk Pothecary without so much as a drachm of Reason the usage of the Courts and the evidence aforesaid is better Law than his pitiful guesses Neither is there colour of Reason in what he saith if these two things appear 1. That the Ecclesiastical Ministers do sufficiently and openly acknowledge the dependance of their Courts upon the Crown without using his Majesties Name or Stile or Arms. 2. That there is not the same reason that the Spiritual Courts should use the Kings Name c. that there is for the Temporal 1. For the first the Ecclesiastical Judges accept their places thankfully as the Kings donation and not the Popes then they readily grant they depend upon the Crown even for the exercise of their Spiritual function and that they receive all coercive and external Jurisdiction immediately from the Crown and the Laws of the
Land and not from the Pope Again they all take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance before their Instalment which are the fence of the Crown against Popery And then in all their publick Prayers before their Sermons the Bishops and Archdeacons c. do Recognize the Kings Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical things and causes as well as Civil Again they Take the late Test and the same Oaths at the publick Sessions And lastly Mr. Cary himself confesseth that they acknowledge the said Supremacy in their publick Canons or Constitutions of the whole Church of England as he notes p. 2. in Can. 1 2 1603. And are all these less significant to testifie their dependance on and acknowledgement of their derivation from the Crown than the Kings Name and Stile and Arms which may be far enough from the Conscience in a Processe 2. For the second that there is not the same reason to use the Kings name in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Courts is apparent from the true cause of using it in the Civil Courts which being not known or well heeded may be the cause of the exception for Bishop Sanderson hath well observed the true reason of using the Kings name in any Court is not thereby to acknowledge the Emanation of the power or Jurisdiction of that Court from or the subordination of that power unto the Kings power or Authority as the objector seems to suppose but rather to shew the same Court to be one of the Kings own immediate Courts wherein the King himself is supposed in the construction of the Law either by his personal or virtual power to be present and the not using the Kings name in other Courts doth not signifie that they do not Act by the Kings Authority but only that the Judges in them are no immediate representatives of the Kings person nor have consequently any allowance from him to use his Name in the execution of them 1. This difference is evident among the Common Law Courts of this Kingdom for though all the immediate Courts of the King do act expresly in his Name yet many other more distant Courts do not as all Courts-Baron Customary-Courts of Copyholders c. and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant by Charter to Corporations and the Universities in all which Summons are issued out and Judgments given and all Acts and proceedings made and done in the name of such persons as have chief Authority in the said Courts and not in the Name of the King thus their stiles run A. B. Major Civitatis Exon N. M. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. and the like and not Carolus Dei gratia 2. Once more a little nearer to our case there are other Courts that are guided by the Civil as distinguish'd from the Common Law as the Court-Marshal and the Court of Admiralty the Kings Name in these is no more used than it is in the Courts Spiritual but all Processes Sentences and Acts in these Courts are in the Name of the Constable Head Marshal or Admiral and not in the Kings Name 3. I shall conclude this with those grave and weighty words of the same most admirable Bishop Sanderson in his excellent Treatise shewing that Episcopacy as Established by Law in England is not prejudicial to Regal Power worthy of every Englishman's reading his words to our purpose are these Which manner of proceeding like that of the Spiritual Courts constantly used in those several Courts before mentioned sith no man hath hitherto been found to interpret as any diminution at all or disacknowledgment of the Kings Soveraignty over the said Courts it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so hainous a crime did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts p. 68 69. Mr. Hickeringill is one of those whom the Bishop describes i. e. that so confidently chargeth the Ecclesiastical Courts with that hainous crime and foundeth that confidence in the Statute of the 1 Eliz. 1. In charity to him I shall give him such words out of that Statute as do not only secure the Act of Queen Mary that repealed the Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. requiring the use of the Kings Name in our proceedings from repeal in that particular but directly and expresly ratifies and confirms the same and our contrary proceedings accordingly So that our proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts without using the Kings Name or Stile or Arms according to 1 Edw. 6. 2. are allow'd and established by this very Act of Queen Eliz. thus Further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that all other Laws and branches of any Act repealed by the said Act of repeal of Mar. and not in this Act specially mention'd and revived shall stand and be repealed in such manner and form as they were before the making of this Act any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding 1 Eliz. 1. 13. but the Act of 2 Phil. and Mar. was not specially mentioned in this Act of Repeal nor any other And the Learned Judges in 4 Jac. observe that this Act of 1 Eliz. revives an Act of Hen. 8. repealed by Queen Mary and in both these Statutes 1 Edw. 6. 2. is made void and the present proceeding of Spiritual Courts without the Kings Name c. plainly confirm'd but vid. Coke Rep. 12. p. 7. CHAP. V. The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. Establishing the High-Commission Court was not the foundation of ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England against Mr. Hickeringill THE worthy Gentleman though he useth much Modesty and will not peremptorily assert and hath only fitted the matter for the consideration of wiser men if he can think there be any such reasons wonderfully after this new and unheard of manner or to this purpose if at all The Statute of Eliz. for the High-Commission Court was the only Basis of all Ecclesiastical power this continued indeed during her time and King James's but being repealed by 17 Car. 1. 11. and 13 Car. 2. 12. down came the Fabrick their great foundation thus torn up now they have neither power from God nor man nor ever shall for his Majesty hath by Statute Enacted never to empower them with any more Commissions to the worlds end Now their basis is taken away I cannot discern where their Authority lies Nak T. q. 1. p. 4 5 6. This is the Spirit of his Reason which he confesseth is not infallible for he saith as before he doth not peremptorily assert it But can a man have the face to write this first and then to say he is not peremptory Would a man in his wits expose himself in this manner in Print and blunder out so much prejudice envy spite and wrath against Government and talk such pitiful unadvised stuff about Law and think to shake the Fabrick of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that hath stood firm so long in the midst of all
its enemies with shadows of straws Had he advised with the learned Sage his Friend Mr. Cary who is the Author of the Law of England certainly he could never have talk'd so idly and impertinently but would have put some colours at least upon his honest designs as Mr. Cary himself hath done But what if this wise Mr. Hickeringill erre fundamentally all this while and the clause of 1 Eliz. and consequently the Stat. of Car. 1. and 2. touch not concern not the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Church at all as certainly they do not and the only wonder is so wise a man should not see it A man of so great and long experience and practice in the Jurisdiction and Laws of the Church So diligent and accurate in his writings and especially of Naked Truth wherein he assures us nothing is presented crude or immature but well digested as a few of those things that his head and heart that is his stomach have been long full of as he saith if you will believe him p. ult But doth not that clause that establisheth the High-Commission affect our ordinary Jurisdictions at all what pity 't is that so excellent a Book as this second part of Naked Truth is should miscarry in its main project and in the very foundation too the fundamental supposition on which all its strength is built and in a maxim peculiar to the Authors invention and singularly his own for ought I know and wherein he seems to place his glory especially seeing as he tells us p. ult he has no pique private interest or revenge to gratifie and writes only to cure old Vlcers and with such hearty wishes that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which is his Interest as well as others were of force strength and vertue and not so disorderly uncertain and precarious as he proves it to be without one Argument if this beloved one taken from the High-Commission fail him And yet alas it will fail him do what we can for the clause in the Stat. 1 Eliz. 1. 18. granted a power to the Crown to establish the High-Commission Court as a Court extraordinary consisting of extraordinary and choice Ministers not restrained to ordinary Ecclesiastical Officers and the ordinary Jurisdiction did never derive from it was never disturbed or altered by it but was ever from the beginning of it consistent with and subordinate to it therefore was it call'd the High-Commission This is evident as from the concurrence of both Jurisdictions all a long so from the letter of the Statute it self and clearly declared to be so by my Lord Coke This clause saith he divideth it self into two branches the first concerning the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical state and persons this branch was Enacted out of necessity for that all Bishops and most of the Clergy of England being then Popish it was Necessary to raise a Commission to deprive them that would not deprive themselves and in case of Restitution of Religion to have a more Summary proceeding than by the ordinary and prolix course of Law is required This branch concerns only Ecclesiastical persons so that as Necessity did cause this Commission so it should be exercis'd but upon Necessity for it was never intended that it should be a continual standing Commission for that should prejudice all the Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions and be grievous to the Subject to be drawn up from all the remote parts of the Realm where before their own Diocesan they might receive Justice at their own doors So that this power of the High-Commission neither granted any new power to the ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction nor took away any of the old Yea it plainly supposeth the prae-existence and exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in an ordinary way and meddles no further with it than to take its measures from it which by consequence allows it in it self as well as for a Rule of its own proceedings as my Lord Coke observes in these words That your Highness shall name to execute under your Highness all manner of Jurisdiction c. and to visit and reform c. all errors c. which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power can or may lawfully be reformed c. Now if the ordinary Jurisdiction by Bishops c. did not derive from or depend on that High-Commission the repealing the Statute I mean the clause that impowred the High-Commission can no wise affect much less destroy that ordinary Jurisdiction and Mr. Hickeringill's foot is gone from his ground and the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Church of England stands fix'd upon its ancient Bottom on which it stood before the High-Commission and ever since notwithstanding the High-Commission is taken away and should never be granted more Now I cannot but observe that Mr. Hickeringill hath the ill luck to cut his own fingers with every tool he meddles with The Stat. of 13 Car. 2. 12. which continues the repeat of the clause in 1 Eliz. for the High-Commission by the 17 of Car. 1. which also took away our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction I say this Stat. 13. Car. 2. 12. restores the ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and excludes the power of the High-Commission Whence it is plain that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction does not Essentially depend on but may and doth now stand by Act of Parliament without the High-Commission Again whereas 't is provided that the Jurisdiction so restored shall not exceed in power what it was in 1639. it is clear that the Church had a lawful Jurisdiction before the Wars otherwise nothing is restored yea 't is non-sence or a delusion unworthy of a Parliament if they that made that Act did not suppose and allow that the ordinary exercise of Jurisdiction in the Spiritual Courts in 1639. was according to Law and I am sure that was just such as is now exercised CHAP. VI. How our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England came at first and is at present Establish'd by Law TO shew how the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction came at first to be Establish'd by Law is a point not so difficult as much desir'd 'T is agreed I hope that all Kindreds Tongues and Nations owe their Obedience to the Gospel when and wheresoever it comes and that England was one of the first of the Nations that embrac'd it and became a Church of Christ then we were a rude unpolish'd and Barbarous people and knew little of Civil Policy or order of Government but by the gracious Ministery of Holy men sent from God our manners began to be softned and our minds sweetned and enlightned and our Princes became early nourishers and honourers of Religion and Religious persons and good nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to the Church then planting among us and began to endow it with wealth and power Arviragus Marius Coilus as the three Kings in Malmesb. are named by Capgravius entertain'd Christians exploded from all parts of the World in this Kingdom and gave them peace and provided them a Country to dwell in and
way vents so wild a notion p. 3. 12. or when that of 25 Hen. 8. 19. was repealed or how they are made less than nothing at this day than they were before since that Statute of limitations as he is pleased to insult He saith They are far from being the Representative Church of England for that the people have not the least Vote in their Election Pray when was it otherwise than 't is now If the Law by Institution make the Clerk a guide to his flock in Spirituals if the people do expresly make choice of him for such or virtually consent in Law he should be so and thereupon the Law allows this Clerk to elect members for the Convocation and also reckons the Convocation to be the Representative Church of England how comes it that Mr. Hickeringill who is so great a stickler for a Legal Religion should be so much wiser than the Law and to scoff at its Constitutions I wish Mr. Hickeringill to beware of touching Foundations with his rude and bold Fancies and disturbing the frame of Government I am sure he will not abide by his own Rule if he be well advised of the manner of Electing the great Representative of the people of England 't is our duty to study to be quiet but some study to be otherwise The wisest word in his Naked Truth is this If men once come to dispute Authority and the wisdom of the Laws and Law-makers the next step is Confusion and Rebellion p. 11. The Conclusion THUS you have a Taste of the Spirit and Sence that runs through the Book called Naked Truth his other little gross mistakes are not worthy observing much less insisting on such as these 1. First That all Archdeaconries have Corpses annex'd which is certainly otherwise in most Archdeaconries in some Dioceses 2. Then that Archdeacons require Procurations when they do not Visit which is not done in some and I hope in no Diocese 3. Lastly That Procurations and Synodals are against Law and not to be recovered by Law or Conscience when he himself confesseth that they are due by ancient Composition That provision notwithstanding his old Canons in Visitations is due for which the money paid for Procurations is paid for them by vertue of that Composition and whereas they are due by undoubted and long possession and Custom which is as Law in England And to conclude are not only expresly allow'd as due but declared to be recoverable in the Ecclesiastical Courts by the Statute of 34 Hen. 8. 19. I have at this time done with his Materials and for the Manner of his Writing let the Sentence of every Reader reproach and shame him I like not the office of Raking Kennels or emptying Jakes and all the harm I return him is to pray heartily for him That God would give him Grace soberly to read over his own Books and with tears to wash these dirty sheets wherein he hath plai'd the wanton and indeed defiled himself more than his own Nest whatever the unlucky Bird intended and that with such a barbarous wit and vile Railery as is justly offensive to God and Man with such wild triumphs of scorn and contempt of his own Order and Office his Betters and Superiors with such a profligate neglect of Government and Peace and of his own Conscience and Law against which he confesseth he still acts yea against his own Interest Safety and his very Reputation For all which Notorious and publick Miscarriages I wish he thought it fit to do publick Penance in another new and cleaner Sheet I have to do with two Adversaries Mr. Hickeringill and Mr. Cary the first wisheth the Church of England had more power than it now hath the other that it had less I presume in the name of the true Sons of this Church that we are very thankful for the power we have by the favour of our gracious King and his good Laws And as we do and always shall acknowledge the Dependance of our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction upon the Imperial Crown of this Realm So whether it seem good to the King and his High Court of Parliament to augment or lessen it or to continue it as it is we shall still maintain our Loyalty and manifest our duty and chearfully submit our selves But Lord forgive our Enemies Persecutors and Slanderers and turn their hearts THE POSTSCRIPT I Have reserved a few Authorities for the satisfaction of such as have no mind or leisure to read the Book which alone are sufficient to oppose and expose my Adversaries Objections I. Episcopal Government in the Church of England is as Ancient as the Church and at first was subordinate under God only to our Kings without any relation to or dependance on the Pope and declared to be so with the grounds and reasons thereof very early by Edw. 1. and Edw. 3. and so Established by Acts of Parliament Read 25 Edw. 3. the summ is thus Here we have a Recital of the first Statute against Provisors to this effect Whereas the Holy Church of England was founded in the Estate of Prelacy by the Grandfather of this King and his Progenitors c. and by them endowed with great Possessions c. for them to inform the People in the Law of God to keep Hospitality c. And whereas the King and other founders of the said Prelacies were the Rightful Adowers thereof and upon Avoidance of such Ecclesiastical Promotions had power to advance thereunto their Kinsmen Friends and other Learned men of the birth of this Realm which being so advanced became able and worthy to serve the King in Council and other places in the Common-wealth The Bishop of Rome Usurping the Seigniory of such Possessions and Benefices did give the same to Aliens as if he were Rightful Patron of those Benefices whereas by the Law of England he never had the Right Patronage thereof whereby in short time all the Spiritual Promotions in this Realm would be ingrossed into the hands of strangers Canonical Elections of Prelates would be abolished works of Charity would cease the Founders and true Patrons would be disinherited the Kings Council weakned and the whole Kingdom impoverished and the Laws and Rights of the Realm destroyed Upon this complaint it was resolved in Parliament That these Oppressions and grievances should not be suffered in any manner and therefore it was Enacted That the King and his Subjects should thenceforth enjoy their Rights of Patronage that free Elections of Archbishops and Bishops and other Prelates Elective should be made according to the Ancient Grants of the Kings Progenitors and their Founders and that No Provision from Rome should be put in Execution but that those Provisors should be Attached Fined and Ransom'd at the Kings Will and withal imprisoned till they have renounced the benefit of their Bulls satisfied the Party grieved and given sureties not to commit the like offence again II. Before this forementioned Act was made the Spiritual Courts were in Being
Answers which appear in the said Act and all and singular things in the said Answers contained We do for Vs and Our Heirs grant and command that the said be inviolably kept for ever willing and granting for Vs and Our Heirs that the said Prelates and Clergie and their Successors for ever do exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Premises according to the tenour of the said Answer VIII The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is a branch of the Kings Supremacy and he that denieth it denieth the King to be a compleat Monarch and Head of the whole intire body of Cawdries Case the Realm as my Lord Coke assures us both from the Common Law and many Statutes in all Ages made on purpose from time to time to vindicate the Crown and secure our own Church and its Jurisdiction under the Crown from the Pope and his illegal Encroachments and Vsurpations before and more especially by Hen. 8. and since the Reformation as is very amply proved by my Lord Coke in his most excellent discourse on Cawdrie's Case and since very learnedly and fully by Sir John Davis Atturny General in Ireland in his Case of Praemunire called Lalor's Case both which should be well read by all that desire satisfaction in this weighty point Thus the Jurisdiction of this Church in subordination to the Supream Head of it hath proceeded through all time in the Laws and Statutes of our own Kingdom and was never legally interrupted till the 17 of Car. 1. but that Act repeal'd by the 13 of our present gracious King it stands firm again according to the letter of the said last Act upon its ancient legal Basis IX The old Objection that the Spiritual Courts do not Act in the Kings Name c. is fully Answered in the Book but because it is only mentioned there that the Case was resolved by the Judges in King James's time I shall here set it L. Coke Rep. 12. p. 7. down as abridg'd for brevity out of my Lord Coke by Manly Pasch 4 Jac. Regis At this Parliament it was strongly urg'd at a grand Committee of the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber that such Bishops as were made after the first day of the Session were not lawful Bishops 1. Admitting them Bishops yet the Manner and Form of their Seals Stiles Processe and proceedings in their Ecclesiastical Courts were not consonant to Law because by the Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. it is provided tht thenceforth Bishops should not be Elective but Donative by Letters Patents of the King and for that at this day all Bishops were made by Election not Donation of the King therefore the said Bishops are not lawful 2. By the same Act it is provided that all Summons c. and Processe in Ecclesiastical Courts shall be made in the Kings Name and Stile and their Seals engraven with the Kings Arms and Certificates made in the Kings Name it was therefore concluded that the said Statute being still in force by consequence all the Bishops made after the Act of 1 Jac. were not lawful Bishops and the proceedings being in the Name of the Bishop makes them unlawful quia non observata forma infertur adnullatio Actus Upon consideration of these Objections by the Kings Commandment it was Resolved by Popham Chief Justice of England and Coke Atturny of the King and after affirmed by the Chief Baron and the other Justices attendant to the Parliament that the said Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. is not now in force being Repealed Annulled and Annihilated by three several Acts of Parliament any whereof being in force it makes that Act of 1 Edw. 6. that it cannot stand quia Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant And by the Act of the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. is set forth the manner of Election and Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and also for the making and Execution of all things which belong to their Authority with which words the Stile and Seal of their Courts and the manner of their proceedings are included which Act of 25 Hen. 8. is Revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1. and consequently that of 1 Edw. 6. c. 2. is Repealed I advise the Reader to see it as more at large expressed and the repealing Statutes particularly mentioned and argued in my Lord Coke 12 Rep. p. 7 8 9. and bid him farewel and not be wiser than the Law FINIS A Catalogue of some Books lately Printed for Richard Royston ROma Ruit The Pillars of Rome broken wherein all the several Pleas for the Pope's Authority in England with all the Material Defences of them as they have been urged by Romanists from the beginning of our Reformation to this day are Revised and Answered By Fr. Fullwood D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon The New Distemper Or the Dissenters Usual Pleas for Comprehension Toleration and the Renouncing the Covenant Consider'd and Discuss'd with some Reflections upon Mr. Baxter's and Mr. Alsop's late Pamphlets published in Answer to the Reverend Dean of S. Paul's Sermon concerning Separation The Lively Picture of Lewis du Moulin drawn by an incomparable Hand Together with his Last Words Being his Retractation of all the Personal Reflections he had made on the Divines of the Church of England in several Books of his Signed by himself on the Fifth and the Seventeenth of October 1680. Christ's Counsel to his Church In Two Sermons preached at the two last Fasts By S. Patrick Dean of Peterburgh and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty THE END