the Prejudice of the Decrees of Generall Councells or the Privileges of the French Church Then he must give no Dispensarions against the Canons or Contrary to those Privileges Thus we have viewed all the reall differences between the Church of Rome and us concerning Papall power which our Lawes take notice of There are some other petâ—y Abuses which we complain of but they may be all referred to one of these four heads The Patronage of the Church of England The Legislative The Judicary and Dispensative powers Other differences are but the Opinions of particular Persons But where no Law is there is no Transgression Wee have seen evidently that Henry the eighth did cast no Branch of Papall power out of England but that which was diametrally repugnant to the Ancient Lawes of the Land made in the Reign of Henry the fourth Richard the second Edward the third Edward the first Henry the third Henry the second And these Lawes ever of Force in England never repealed no not so much as in Queen Maryes time when all the Lawes of Henry the eighâ—h and Edward the sixth which concerned the Bishop of Rome were repealed So that I professe clearly I doe not see what advantage Henry the eighth could make of his own Lawes which he might not have made of those ancieÌ„t lawes except onely a gawdy title of Head of the English Church which survived him not long and the Tenths and first fruits of the Clergy which was so late an usurpation of the Pope that it was not in the nature of things wheÌ„ those ancient lawes were made And since I have mentioned the Novelty of that upstart Vsurpation give me leave to let you see how it was welcommed into England whilest it was but yet hatching with the shell upon the Head of it By a Law of Henry the fourth about an Hundred yeares before Henry the eyghth so late this Mushrom began to sprout up For the grievous Complaints made to the King by his Commons in Parliament of the horrible Mischiefs and Damnable Custome which is introduced of new in the Church of Rome that none could have Provision of an Archbishoprick untill he had compounded with the Popes Chamber to pay great excessive summes of money as well for the First fruits as other lesser Fees and Perquisites c The King ordeineth in Parliament as well to the Honour of God as to eschew the Dammage of the Realm and perill of soules That whosoever shall pay such summes should forfeit all they had or as much as they might forfeit Wherein are Henry the eights Lawes more bitter against the Bishop of Rome or more severe then this is To conclude we have seen the precise time when all these Weeds did first begin to peep out of the earth The very first Introduction to the intended Pageant was the spoiling of Christian Kings of the Patronage of the Church which Bellarmine confesseth that they held Per non breve tempus For a long time A long time indeed so long as there had been Christian Princes in the world from Constantine the Great to Henry the fourth in the Empire and yet longer with us in Brittaine from King Lucius to Henry the First The Clergy of Liege say Nimium effluxit tempus quo haeâ— consuetudo incepit e. It is too long since this Custome of swearing fidelity to Princes did begin Aud under this Custome Holy and Reverend Bishops have yielded up their soules to God giving to Caesar that which was Caesars and to God that which was Gods But theÌ„ rose up Pope Hildebrand otherwise called Gregory the seventh Fortissimus Ecclesiae Dei Vindex The most undaunted Vindicator of the Church of God Who feared not to revoke and defend the old Holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes With this accordeth the Church of Liege Hildehran dus Papa Author hujus Novelli Schismatis primus Levavit Sacerdotalem Lanceam contra Diadema Regni c. Pope Hildebrand the author of this new Schisme first lift up his Episcopall Lance against the Royall diadeÌ„ And a little after Si utriusque Legis totam Bibliothecam c. If I turn over the whole Library of the old and new Law and all the ancient Expositors thereof I shall not find an Example of this Apostolicall precept onely Pope Hildebrand perfected the Sacred Canons when he Commanded Maud the Marchionesse to subdue Henry the Emperour for remission of her Sinnes I take no exceptions to the person of Pope Hildebrand others have done it sufficiently Whether the Title of Antichrist was fastened upon him justly or injustly I regard not Yet it was in the time of this Hildebrand and Paschalis his Successor that the Arch-bishop of Florence affirmed by revelatioÌ„ for he protested that he knew it most certainly that Antichrist was to be revealed in that age And about this time the Waldenses of whom St. Bernard saith that if we inquire into their Faith nothing was more Christian if into their Conversation nothing was more irreprehensible made their Secession from the Bishop of Rome And not long after in the yeare 1120. published a Booke to the world that the great Antichrist was come That the present Governers of the Roman Church armed with both Powers Secular and Spirituall who under the specious Name of the Spouse of Christ did oppose the right way of Salvation were Antichrist But I cannot but wonder what are those old holy Ecclesiasticall Lawes which Bellarmine mentioneth Those Institutions of the Holy Fathers which Hildebrand himself professeth to follow Sanctorum Patrum instituta sequenâ—es Why doe they mention what they are not able to produce or pretend what they never can perform Bellarmin hath named but one poore counterfeit Canon without Antiquity without Authority without Vse without Truth If Mr. Serjeant be able to help him with a recruit it would come very seasonably for without some such helps his pretended Institutions of the Fathers will be condemned for his own Innovations and for arrant Vsurpations and the Guilt of Schism will fall upon the Roman Court. Sect. I. Cap. IX But I expect it should be objected that besides these Statutes which concern the Patronage of the English Church the Legislative the Iudiciary the Dispensative power of Popes there are two other Statutes made by Henry the eighth The one an Act for extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome The other an Act for establishing the Kings Succession in the Crown wherein there is an Oath that the Bishop of Rome ought not to have any Iurisdiction or Authority in this Realm And that it is declared in the 37. Article of our Church that the Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Kingdome of England And in the Oath ordained by Queen Elisabeth That no Forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall with in this Realm I answer this Objection three wayes First as to the two Lawes
phantastick Persons who have been great pretenders to demonstration but always succeslesse and for the most part ridiculous They are so conceitedly curious about the premisses that commonly they quite mistake their conclusion Causes encombred with Circumstances and those left to the election of free agents are not very capable of demonstration The Case in difference between us is this as it is stated by me Whether the Church of England have withdrawn themselves from Obedience to the Vicar of Christ and seperated from the Communion of the Catholick Church And upon those Termes it is undertaken by him in the words immediatly following And that this Crime is justly charged upon his Church not onely with Colour but with undeniable Evidence of fact will appeare by the position of the Case and the nature of his exceptions We have the State of the Controversy agreed upon between us Now let us see how he goeth about to prove his intention What Church soever did upon probable reasons without any neeessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches is guilty of Schisme But the Church of England in Henry the eightâ—s dayes did upon probable reasons without any necessary or convincing grounds break the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in the Gospell and agreed upon by all true churches therefore the church of England is guilty of Schisme I doe readily assent to his Major proposition and am ready to grant him more if he had pleased to insert it That that Church is Schismaticall which doth breake the Bonds of Unity ordained by Christ in his Gospell whatsoever their reasons be whether convincing or probable and whosoever doe either consent to them or dissent from them But I deny his Minor which he endeavoureth to prove thus Whatsoever Church did renounce or reject these two following Rules or Principles first that The doctrines which had been inherited from their Forefathers as the Legacyes of Christ and his Apostles were solely to be acknowledged for Obligatory and nothing in them to be changed Secondly that Christ had made St. Peter first or chief or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the Church after his departure out of this World and to whom all others in difficulties concerning Matters belonging to Universall faith or Government should have recoâ—rse and that the Bishops of Rome as Successors from St. Peter inherited from him this privilege in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles That Church did breake the Bonds of Vnity ordained by Christ in his Gospell and agreed upon between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and the rest of her communion But the Church of England did all this in Henry the eyghts dayes that very yeare where in this unhappy Separation began upon meerly probable no convincing grounds Therefore c. To his former Proposition I made this exception That he would obtrude upon us she Church of Rome and its dependents for the Catholick Church Uppon this he flyeth out as it is his Custome into an invective discourse telling me I looke a squint at his position of the case He will not find it so in the conclusion And that I strive Hocus-pocus like to divert my Spectators eyes With a great deale more of such like froath where in there is not a syllable to the purpose except this that he did not mention the word Catholick in that place The greater was his fault It is a foule Solecisme in Logick not to conclude contradictorily I did mention the Catholick Church in the State of the Question Whether the church of England had separated it self from the communion of the Catholick Church And he had undertaken in the words immediatly following to charge that very Schisme upon us with undeniable Evidence And in his very first Essay shuffles out the Catholick Church and in the place thereof thrusts in the Church of Rome with all the rest of her communion He might have known that wee doe not looke upon the Church of Rome with all the rest of her Communion as the Catholick Church Nor as above a fifth part of the present Catholick Church And that wee doe not ascribe any such in fallibility in necessary truths to the Roman Church with all her dependants as wee doe to the true Catholick Church Nor esteem it alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the modern Roman Church Namely in those points wherein shee had first seperated both from the primitive Roman Church and from the present Catholick Church But wee confesse it to be alwayes Schismaticall to seperate from the Communion of the Catholick Church united Thus much he ought to take notice of and when he hath oecasion hereafter to write upon this Subject not to take it for granted as they use to doe that the Catholick Church and the Roman Church are convertible Termes or tell us a Tale of a Tub what their Tenet is that these Churches which continue in Communnion with the Roman are the onely true Churches We regard not their Schismaticall and uncharitable Tenets now no more then we regarded the same tenets of the donatists of old They must produce better authority then their Owne and more substantiall proofes then he hath any in his Budget to make us believe that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church It is charity to acknowledge it to be a Catholick church inclusively but the greatest uncharitablenesse in the world to make it the Catholick church exclusively that is to seperate from Christ and from hope of Salvation as much as in them lieth all Christians who are not of their own communion Howsoever it is well that they who used to vaunt that the Enemy trembled at the name of the Catholick church are now come about themselves to make the Catholick Church to be an appendix to the Roman Take notice Reader that this is the first time that Mr. Serjeant turns his back to the question but it will not be the last My next taâ—ke is to examine his two Rules or Bonds of Unity And first concerning his Rule of faith I doe not onely approve it but thanck him for it and when I have a purpose to confute the 12 new Articles of Pius the fourth I will not desire a better medium then it And I doe Cordially subscribe to his Censure that the Transgressors there of are indeed those who are truly guilty of that horrid Schisme which is now in the Christian world To his second Rule or principle for Government that Christ made Sâ— Peter First or Chiefe or Prince of his Apostles who was to be the first mover under him in the church after he departed out of this world to whom all others should have recourse in greater Difficulties If he had not been a meer Novice and altogether ignoranâ— of the Tenets of our English Church he might have known that wee have no controversy
with Sâ— Peter nor with any other about the privileges of St. Peter Let him be First Chiefe or Prince of the Apostels in that sense wherein the Ancient Fathers stiled him so Let him be the First Ministeriall Mover And why should not the Church have recourse to a prime Apostle or Apostolicall Church in doubtfull cases The learned Bishop of Winchester of whom it is no shame for him to learn might have taught him thus much not onely in his own name but in the name of the King and Church of England Neither is it questioned among us whether St. Peter had a Primacy but what that Primacy was And whether it were such an one as the Pope doth now Challenge to him self and you challenge to the pope But the King doâ—h not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the Apostles I wonder how it commeth to passe that he who commonly runneth over in his expressions should now on a suddain become so dry upon this Subject If this be all be needed not to have forsaken the Communion of the Church of England for any great Devotion that he beareth to St. peter more then wee But yet wee dare not rob the rest of the Apostles to cloath St. Peter Wee say clearly with St. Cyprian Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit petrus pari consortio praediti honoris Poâ—estatis sed exordium ab Vnitate proficisciâ—ur Primatus Petro daâ—ur ut una christi Ecclesia una caâ—hedr a monstretur The rest of the Apostles were even the same thing that Peter was endowed with an equall Fellowship both of honour and power but the beginning commeth from Vnity the primacy is given to Peter to signify one church and one chaire It is wel known that St. Cyprian made all the Bisshop ricks in the World to be but one masse Episcopatus unus est Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus whereof every Bishop had an entire part cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur All that he attributeth to St. Peter is this beginning of Vnity this primacy of Order this preheminence to be the Chief of Bishops To be Bishop of the principall Church from whence Sacerdot all Vnity did spring Yet I esteem St. Ciprian as fauorable an Expositor to the See of Rome as any they wil find out of their own Chaire that was no more interessed in that See This primacy neither the Ancients nor wee doe deny to St. Peter of Order of Place of preheminence if this first Movership would serve his turn this controversy were at an end for our parts But this Primacy is over leane The Court of Rome have no Gusto to it They thirst after a visible Monarchy upon earth an absolute Ecclesiasticall Soveraignty A power to make Canons to abolish Canons to dispense with Canons to impose pensions to dispose dignities to decide Controversies by a single Authority This was that which made the breach not the innocent Primacy of St. Peter as I shall demonstrate by evident proofes as cleare as the noone day light Observe Reader that Mr. Serjeant is making another Vagare our of the lists to seeke for his Adversary where he is sure not to find him here after if he have a mind to employ his pen upon this subject and not to barke at the Moonshine in the water let him endeavour to demonstrate these foure things which wee deny indeed First that each Apostle had not the same power over the Christian world by virtue of Christ Commission As my Father senâ— mee so send I you which St. Peter had Secondly that St. Peter ever excercised a single Iurisdiction over the persons of the rest of the Apostles more then they over him besides and over and above his Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity Thirdly that St. Peter a lone had his Commission granted to him by Christ as to an Ordinary Pastour to him and his Successors And all the rest of the Apostles had their CoÌ„missions onely as Delegates for term of life This new hatched Distinction being the foundation of the present Papacy I would be glad to see one good author for it who writ within a thoâ—sand yeares after Christ. Lastly that the Soveraignty of Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction rested in St. Peter alone and was exercised by him alone and not by the Apostolicall College During the hystory of the Acts of the Apostles Now let us proceed from St. Peter to the Pope which is the second part of his rule of Government And that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of St. Peter inherited from him this Privilige in respect of the Successors of the rest of the Apostles And actually exercised this power in all the Countreyes which kept Communion with the Church of Rome what Privilege To be the first Bishop the Chiefe Bishop the principall Bishop the first mover in the Church just as S. Peter was among the Apostles we have heard of no other Privilege as yet If a man would be pleased ou of meer pitty to his starving cause to suppose thus much what good would it doe him Doth he think that the pope or the court of Rome would ever accept of such a Papacy as this or thanke him for his double diligence He must either be meanly versed in the Primitive Fathers or give little credit to them who will deny the Pope to succced St Peter in the Roman Bishoprick or will envy him the Dignity of a Patriarck with in his just Bounds But the Breach between Rome and England was not about any Episcopall Metropolitical or Patriarchall rightes A Patriarch hath more power in his proper Bishoprick then in his province and more in his province then in the rest of his Patriarchate But papall power is much greater then any Bishop did ever challenge in his own Diocesse In my answer to his Assumtion I shal shew sufficiently who they were that Brake this Bond of Vnion and are the undoubted Authors of Schisme But before I come to that I would know of him how the Pope did inherit all those Privileges which he claimeth from S. Peter or how he holds them by Christs own ordination in holy Scripture First all the Eastern Churches doe affirm Confidently that the most of these Privileges were the Legacyes of the Church representative not Christ or St. Peter And it seemeth to be very true by that of the Councell of Sardica Si vobis placet Sancti Petri memoriam honoremus If all these Priuileges were the popes inheritance it was not wel done of old Osius to put it upon a Si placet content or not content and to assigne no better a reason then the memory of a Predecessour It semeth likewise to be true by the Councel of Chalcedon which attributeth the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Decrees of the Fathers and the dignity of that imperiall City And when the popes
well tell us that it is impossible to make a crooked line with a leaden Rule Particular Tradition is flexible and is often bended according to the interests and inclinations of particular ages and places and persons He saith that there can be no encroachments so as men adhere to this method that is immediate Tradition He telleth us that they did adhere to this Method and that there was such immediate Tradition and yet we have seen and felt that encroachments and vsurpations and abuses did not onely creep into the Church but like a Violent Torrent did beare down all opposition before them I produce but two Witnesses but they are beyond exception The one is Pope Adrian the sixth in his Instructions to his Nuncio Franciscus Cheregatus when he sent him to the German Princes at the diet of Nuremberg Wee know that in the holy See for some yeares past many things have been to be abhominated Abuses in Spirituall things Excesses in Mandates and all things changed perversly Neither is it to be marveiled at if sicknesse descend from the head to the members from the Chiefest Bishops to other inferiour Prelates c. And againe Wherein for so much as concerneth us you shall promise that wee will doe our uttermost endeavour that in the first place this Court from whence peradventure this evill hath proceeded may be reformed that as the Corruption flowed from thence to all inferiours so likewise the health and reformation of all may proceed from thence Pope Adrian Confesseth abominable abuses and excesses and perverse mutations and corruptions and yet Mr. Serjeant would make us believe that where this Method of Orall and immediate Tradition is used there can be no changes Either this Method was not used or this Method is not a sufficient preservative against innovations both wayes his demonstration falleth to the ground My other Witnesse is the Councell of nine cheife Cardinalls who upon their Oaths delivered up as their veredict a bundle of abuses grievons abuses abuses not to be tolerated they are their own words ye a Monsters to Paul the third in the yeare 1538 beseeching him that these spots might be taken away which if they were admitted in any Kingdome or Republick would streight bring it to ruine Never any man did make encroachments and innovatious to be impossible before this man His assumtion is as false as his major proposition But these two Rules whereof this is one part that the Bishops of Rome as Successors of S. Peter did inherit from him this privilege to be the first or Chiefe or Princes of Bishops c. Were agreed upon unanimously between the church of Rome and its dependents and the church of England and delivered from hand to hand in them all by the Orall and immediate Tradition of a World of Fathers to a World of children successively as a Rule of discipline received from Christ and his Apostles c. If all this were true it concerneth us nothing we may perhaps differ from them in judgmeÌ„t but have no formed quarrell with them about this that I know of We are willing to submit not onely to the Ordinances of Christ bâ—t to the just ordinances of man and to yeeld for the common Peace and Tranquility of Christendome rather more then is due then lesse But otherwise how was that unanimously agreed upon between the Churches of Rome and England and so delivered by Fathers to Children as a thing accorded whereof the Church of Rome is no better accorded within it self unto this day I mean concerning the divine right of the Bishop of Rome to all the privileges of St. Peter when the Popes greatest Champions maintein it so coldly as a thing that is not improbable that peradventure may be peradventure may not be as grounded upon a fact of St. Peter that is as much as to say not upon the Mandate of Christ And though wee should be so kind-hearted as to suppose that there is some part of Papall power in the abstract not in the concrete which is of Christs own institution Namely The beginning of Vnity that is a power to Convocate the Church and to preside in the Church and to pronounce the sentence of the Church so far and no further then power purely spirituall doth extend although there be no speciall mandate of Christ to that purpose for one to be the successour of S. Peter or any prime or chiefe of all other Bishops yet in the Iudgement even of the greatest opposers of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy it is the dictate of nature that one should preside over the rest Ex dei ordinatione perpetua necesse fuit est erit ut in Presbyterio quispiam loco dignitate primus actioni gubernandae praesit Yet what is this to that great Bulke of Ecclesiasticall Authority which hath been conferred upon that See by the decrees of oecumenicall councells and by the Civill Sanctions of Christian Emperours which being Humane Institutions may be changed by Humane Authority Can one scruple of divine right convert a whole masse of Humane right into divine Wee see Papall power is not equall or alike in all places but is extended or contracted variously according to the different Privileges and liberties of severall Churches and kingdomes We see at this day the Pope hath very little to doe in Sicily as I have shewed in my Vindication of the Church of England by reason that one of his Predecessors long since hath alienated in a manner the whole Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to the Soveraign Prince of the Country and to his Heirs Wee may call it by deputation or delegation but this is plain it is to him and his Heâ—res for ever This is certain divine right cannot be extended or contracted There is no Privilege or prescription against divine right That which belongeth to one person by divine right cannot be alienated to another person by humane right for then Humane right should be stronger then divine right In summe although there be some colour or pretext of divine right for a beginning of Vnity wheresoever the Catholick Church should fix it yet it appeareth evidently by the Vniversall practice of the Christian world in all ages that there is no Colour nor so much as a shadow of divine right for all the other Branches of papall power and those vast Privileges of the Roman Court. In the Councell of Constance they damned most of the Articles of Iohn Wickliffe down right without hesitation but when they came to the one and fortieth Article It is not necessary to Salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme among other Churches they paused and used some reservation It is an errour if by the Roman Church he understood the Vniversall Chureh or a Generall Councell or for as much as he should deny the primacy of the Pope above other particular Churches Their judgement is clear enough they yeilded to the Pope primatum not suprematum A primacy of
power to name and constitute two and thirty Commissioners sixteen of the Clergy and other sixteen of the Peers and Parliament to view the Ecclesiasticall Lawes of the Kingdome and declare which were fit to be retained and which were to be abrogated The same Law is confirmed and enlarged The Sixth Law restreineth the payment of Tenths and First Fruits to the Bishop of Rome And prescribeth how Arch-bishops Bishops c. are to be elected and consecrated within the Realm without payment of any thing to Rome for Bulls and Pals c. The seventh law is an Act of Eâ—oneration of the Kings subjects from exactions and impositions heretofore paid to the See of Rome for Pensions Peterpence Licenses Dispensations Confirmations faculties c. and for having licenses and dispensations within the Realm without further suing for the same As being Vsurpations coâ—trary to the law of the land The eighth Act is Concerning the Kings Highnesse to be supreme Head of the Church of England that is Politicall head and to have Authority to redresse all Errours Heresies and Abuses in the same That is to say with externall Coactive Iurisdiction Wee never gave our Kings the power of the Keys or any part of either the Key of Order or the Key of Iurisdiction purely Spirituall but onely that Coactive power in the externall Regiment of the Church which their Predecessors had alwayes enjoyed The Ninth Act is for the annexing Tenths and first fruits to the Crown for the better supportation of the Burthens of the Commouwealth The tenth Act is au Act extinguâ—shing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or extirpating it out of this Realm That is Not the Bishop of Romes Primacy of Order Not his beginning of Vnity Not that respect which is dne to him as Bishop of an Apostolicall See If he have not these it is his own fault This is not our quarrell It is so far from it that wee do not envy him any just legacies of Christian Emperours or Generall Councells But that which our Ancestors did extinguish and endeavour to extirpate out of England was the Popes externall Coactive power over the Kings Subjects in foro contentioso as wee shall see by and by when we come to state the quarrell rightly between us After this Act there followed au eleventh Act made for corroborating of this last Act to exclude the usurped power and Iurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome And both these Acts are backed with new Oaths as those times were fruitfull of Oaths such as they were The last Act of any moment was an Act of Ratification of the Kings Majestjes Style of Supreme head of the Church of England making it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it But as well the eighth Act which gave the King that title of the Head of the Church as this twelfth Act which makes it treason to attempt to deprive the King of it are both repealed and never were restored So are likewise the tenth Act of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome and the eleventh act made for corroboration of that Act with both their Oaths included in them All that hath been added since of moment which concerneth the Bishop of Rome is one Act Restoring to the Crown the ancient Iurisdiction over the State Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall and abolishing all forrain power repugnant to the same Here is no power created in the Crown but onely an ancient Iurisdiction restored Here is no forrein power abolished but onely that which is repugnant to the ancient Lawes of England and to the Prerogative Royall In a word here is no power ascribed to our Kings but meerly Politicall aud Coactive to see that all their Subjects doe their Dutyes in their severall places Coactive power is one of the Keys of the Kingdome of this world it is none of the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven This might have been expressed in Words lessé subject to exception But the case is clear The Grand Act xxv Hen. 8. cap. 12 The Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth The Articles of our Chutch Art 37. doe all proclaime that this power is merely Politicall Christ gave St. Peter a Commission to preach to baptise to bind and loose in the Court of Conscience but where did he give him a Commission to give Licenses to grant Facultyes to make Lawes to dispense with lawes to receive appeales to impose Tenths and First fruits in other mens Kingdomes whether the right owner will or no Who gave him power to take other mens Subjects against their Wills to be his Officers and Apparitors That is more power then Christ himself did challenge here upon Earth And now Reader take a Stand and looke about thee See among all these Branches of Papall power which were cast out of England if thou caust find either of St. Peters Keys or his Primacy of Order or his Beginning of Vnity or anything which is purely Spirituall that hath no further influence then merely the Court of Conscience No but on the other side behold a pack of the grossest Usurpations that ever were hatched and all so late that is was above a thousand years after the death of S. Peter be fore any of his pretended Privileges did see the sun in England observe them one by one The first is a power to dispense with English Subjects for holding Plurality of Benifices contrary to the Lawes of England And for non Residents contrary to the Statutes of the Realm It had been much to have made Merchandise of his own Decrees but to Dispense with the Lawes of the Land Non auderet haec facere Viduae mulieri He durst not doe so much to a poore widow woman as he did to the Church and Kingdome of England to dispense with their Lawes at his pleasure It is but vain for the Flower of our Kingdome to assemble aud consult about healthfull Lawes if a Forrainer have power to dispense with the breach of them as it seemeth good in his Eyes They might as well sit them downquietly fall to pilling of rushes The second Branch of Papall power which was Excluded out of England was the Popes Iudiciary power I doe not mean in Controversies of Faith when he is in the Head of a councell Yet Eugeniur the fourth confesseth that in points of Faith the sentence of the councel is rather to be atteÌ„ded theÌ„ the sentence of the Pope But I mean in points of meum and tuum not onely in some rare cases between Bishop and Bishop which had been lesse intollerable and had had more shew of Iustice but generally in all cases promiscuously as if the whole nation wanted either discretion or Law to determin their own differences at home without the help of the Roman Courtier tosqueese their purses It was not Henry the eighth but the old Lawes of England which gave them this blow against Appeales to Rome The third Branch of papall
power which was turned out of England by Henry the eighth was the Popes Legislative power especially in making new Heresies by his own Authority and for his own Interest prescribing the punishment as if all the world were his Subjects Mr. Serjeant may be pleased to inform himself better that the Popes Canons and decretalls never had since the First Conversion of England the force or power of Lawes in England untill they were received by the Nation nor then any further then they were received The fourth Branch is the Soveraign patronage of the English Church with all those rights aud appurtenances which belong thereunto as to convocate the clergy and Dissolve their Assembly To exempt their persons from secular Iudgement To have the Disposition of Ecclesiasticall Dignityes and the Custodium of them in the Vacancy But these things are so notoâ—ious to all those who are acquainted with the Ecclesiasticall Customes of England that there can be no manner of Qnestion of it The Convocation was alwayes called and dissolved by the absolute and precise Mandate of the King to the Arch-Bishop Yea even when the Arch-Bishop was the Popes legate and when he might have challenged another right if the Pope had had any pretense The temporaltyes of the Bishopricks in the Vacancy were ever sèised into the hands of the King untill he granted out his Writ of Manum amoveas or Oster la main If ordinary Patrons did not present in due time to a benefice it devolved to the Ordinary and from him to the King there it stayed Nullum â—empus occurrit Regi The fifth Privilege was the receiving of Tenths and First fruits which were a late encroachment of the Bishop of Rome upon the Clergy without any just ground and upon that score were condemned in the Councells of Constance and Basile and now were seised into the Kings hand towards the discharge of the Ecclesiasticall Burthens of the Kingdome The last perqnisire whith the Pope lost was all the profits of his Court by Bulls and Palls and Pensions and Reservations and Exemptions and Licenses and Dispensations and Consirmations and Pardons and Indulgences and an hundred other pecuniary Artifices practised in his Court at Rome and in his Legantine Courts and Nunciatures abroad But this abuse is so foule that the Popes own selected Cardinalls doe cryshame upon it as much as wee and lay-down this genera Rule That it is not lawfull to make any gain by the exercise of the Keys seing wee have the firm word of Christ freely ye have received freely give c. For as the use which now prevaileth doth disgrace the See of Rome and disturbeth Christian people so the contrary practice would bring much honour to this See and marveilously edify the people These are the reall differences between the See of Rome and the Church and Kingdome of England concerning the papacy all these altercations which wee have about Thou art Peter and the Keys given to St. Peter and Feed my Sheep and I have prayed for thee are but like to the tinkling of Cybeles Priests upon their Cymballs on purpose to deafe the eares of the Spectators and to conceale the Cryes and ejulations of poore oppressed Christians To reduce them into a little better Method then they lye in the Statutes The maine quaestious are or may be reduced to four heads The first grand quaestion is concerning the Soveraignty of the English Church in respect of the externall Regiment thereof This hath four subordinate Branches First who is the right Patron of the English Church under God the King or the Pope Secondly who hath power to Convocate Synods of the Kings subjects within England The King or the Pope Thirdly whether the Pope have justly imposed new Oaths upon the Arch Bishops and Bishops fourthly whether Tenths and first fruits in England be due to the See of Rome The second question is concerning the Popes legislative power Whether the Canon law or the decretalls have been anciently esteemed binding lawes in England or ought to be so esteemed except they be received by the English Nation and metriculated among our lawes The third is concerning his judiciary power Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeales from England by the Ancient lawes of that Land and send for whom he pleaseth to Rome 2. Whether Bulls and Excommunications from Rome can be lawfully executed in England except the King give leave for the execution of them 3. Whether the Pope can send Legates and set up Legantine Courts in England by the Ancient lawes of that Realme The fourth Difference is concerning the popes dispensative power whether the Pope can dispense with the lawes of England 2. Whether we stand in need of his dispensations In every one of these diffeâ—ences wee maintein that the Bishop of Rome and the Court of Rome have been guilty of most grosse Vsurpations Sect I. Cap V. To begin with the first If it were necessary to call in any forreyn subsidiary Supplies for the further fortifying of the King of Englands Soveraign Patronage under God of the Church within his Territories I might find strong recruits from the Greek Emperours to shew that they alwayes practised this power within their Dominions to place Bishops in vacant Sees and that the Contrary was hactenus inauditum never heard of in S. Gregoryes dayes To them I might adde the French and Germane Emperours who not onely injoyed the same privilege by ancient Custome but to whom the Roman Bishops disclaimed it with all their Clergy Iudges and Lawiers Adrian the first to Charles the greate Anno 774. And Leo the eighth to the Emperour Otho Anno 964. I might produce the presidents of the Spanish Monarchs Conc. Tolet 12. cap. 6. It were a most unreasonable thing that Soveraign Princes should be trusted with the Government of their people and have their Bishops who must participate in the Government by informing the consciences of their Subjects be obtruded on them by Strangers I cannot omit the observation of a Learned Bishop That Quacunque ratione ad pontificatum pateret ingressus nemo Apostolicae Cymbae gubernacula capessebat ni prius Imperatoris authoritas inâ—ercessisset By what way soever the Election of the Pope was made And Bellarmine mentioneth seven changes in the manner of choosing the Pope Yet no man was ever admitted to the actuall Government of the Apostolicall See without the Emperours confirmation But our case is strong enough without twisting any forrein presidents with it William the conquerour William Rufus and Henry the first did injoy the right of placing in vacant Sees by the tradition of a Ring and of a Crosier staffe without ever seeking for Forrein approbation or ordination or confirmation as their Predecessors Kings of England and Brittain had done before them Els it had been very strange The Roman Roâ—a will give decisive Sentence for him to be Patron of a Church who first builded it and endowed it But then
is the Keeper of both the Tables and wee say that for the first Table the Bishops ought to be his Interpreters Thirdly as wee question not the Popes legislative or coactive power over his own subjects so we submit to the judgemeÌ„t of the Catholick church whether he ought to have a primacy of order as the successour of S. Peter and as a consequent thereof a right if he would content himself with it to summoÌ„ Councells when and where there are no Christian Soveraignes to doe it and to joyne with other Bishops in making spirituall Lawes or Canons such as the Apostles made and such as the primitive Bishops made before there were christiaÌ„ Emperours But then those Canons are the Lawes of the Church not of the Pope As those Canons in the Acts of the Apostles were the Lawes of the Apostolicall College The Apostles and Elders and Brethren not the Lawes of S. Peter Then their Lawes have no Coactive Obligation to compell Christians in the outward Court of the Church against their Wills or further then they are pleased to submit theÌ„selves All exteriour coactive power is from the Soveraigne Prince and therefore when and where Emperours and Kings are Christians to them it properly belongeth to summon Councells and to confirm their Canons thereby making them become lawes Because Soveraign Princes onely have power to License and Command their Subjects to Assemble to assign fit places for their Assembling to protect them in their Assemblyes and to give a Coactive power to their Lawes without which they may doe their best to drive away Wolves and to oppose Heriticks but it must be with such Armes as Christ had furnished them withall that is persuasions Prayers Teares and at the most seperating them from the Communion of the faithfull and leaving them to the Iudgement of Christ. The Controversy is then about new upstart Papall Lawes either made at Rome such are the decretalls of Gregory the ninth Boniface the eighth Clement the fifth and succeeding Popes Or made in England by Papall Legates as Otho and Othobone Whether the Pope or his Legates have power to make any such Lawes to bind English Subjects and compell them to obey them against their Wills the King of England contradicting it The first time that ever any Canon of the Bishop of Rome or any legislative Legate of his was attempted to be obtruded upon the King or Church of England was eleven hundred yeares after Christ. The first Law was the Law against taking Investitures to Bishopricks from a Lay hand And the first Legate that ever presided in an English Synod was Iohannes Cremensis of both which I have spoken formerly Observe Reader and be astonished if thou hast so much faith to believe it That the Pope should pretend to a legislative power over British and English Subjects by divine right and yet never offer to put it in execution for above eleven hundred yeares It remaineth now to prove evidently that Henry the eighth by his Statute made for that purpose did not take away from the Bishop of Rome any Privilege which he and his Predecessors had held by Inheritance from St. Peter and been peaceably possessed of for fifteen hundred yeares But on the contrary that eleven hundred yeares after St. Peter was dead the Bishops of Rome did first invade the right of the Crown of England to make Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church which the Predecessors of Henry the eighth had enjoyed peaceably untill the dayes of William Rufus nemine contradicente And that the Kings Lawes were evermore acknowledged to be true Lawes and obligatory to the English Subjects but that the Popes decrees were never esteemed to be binding Lawes in England except they were incorporated in to our Lawes by the King and Church or Kingdome of England Whence it followeth by irrefragable consequence that Henry the eighth was not the Schismatick in this particular but the Pope and those that maintain him or adhere to him in his Vsurpations First for the Kings right to make Lawes not onely concerning the outward RegimeÌ„t of the Church but even coÌ„cerning the Keys of Order and jurisdiction so far as to oblige them who are trusted with that power by the Church to doe their dutyes it is so evident to every one who hath but cast his Eyes upon our English Lawes that to bestow labour on proving it were to bring Owles to Athens Their Lawes are extant made in all Ages concerning faith and good Manners Heresy Holy Orders the Word the Sacraments Bishops Priests Monkes the Privileges and Revenues of Holy Church Marriages Divorces Simony The Pope his SenteÌ„ces his oppressions and usurpations Prohibitions Appeales from Eeclesiasticall judges and generally all things which are of Ecclesiasticall Cognifance and this in those times which are acknowledged by the Romanists themselves to have been Catholick More then this they inhibited the Popes own Legate to attempt to decree any thing contrary to the Kings Crown and dignity And if they approved the decrees of the Popes Legates they confirmed them by their Royall Authority and so incorporated them into the Body of the English Lawes Secondly that the Popes decrees never had the force of Lawes in England without the Confirmation of the King Witnesse the decrees of the Councell of Lateran as they are commonly called but it is as cleare as the day to any one who readeth the eleveÌ„th the six and fortieth and the one and sixtieth Chapters that they were not made by the Councell of Lateran but some time after perhaps not by InnoceÌ„t the third but by some succeeding Pope For the author of them doth distinguish himself expresly from the Councell of Lateran It was well provided in the Councell of Lateran c. But because that statute is not observed in many Churches we confirming the foresaid statute doe adde c. Again It is known to have been prohibited in the councel of Lateran c. But we inhibiting the same moro strongly c. How soever they were the Popes decrees but never were received as Lawes in England as wee see evidently by the third Chapter That the Goods of Clergimen being convicted of Heresy be forfeited to the Church That all Officiers Secular and Ecclesiasticall should take an Oath at their Admission into their Office to their power to purge their Territories from Heresy That if a Temporall Lord did neglect being admonished by the Church to purge his Lands from Heresy he should be excommunicated And if he contemned to satisfy within a yeare the Pope should absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance And by the three and fortieth Chapter That no Ecâ—â—â—siasticall person be compelled to swear allegiance to a Lay man And by the six and fortieth Chapter that Ecclesiasticall persons be free from taxes Wee never had any such Lawes all Goods forfeited in that kind were ever confiscated to the King We never had any such Oaths Every one is to answer for himself We know
legislative power in England was a grosse Vsurpation and was suppressed before it was well formed But they are affraid of the old Rule Breake ice in one place and it will crack in more If they did confesse one Errour they should be suspected of many If their Infallibility was lost all were gone And therefore they resolve to bear it out with head and shoulders and in place of disclaiming a single power to make Ecclesiasticall Lawes and to give them a coactive obligation in exteriour Courts they challenge a power to the Pope some say ordinarily others extraordinarily some say directly other indirectly to make and abrogate Politicall Lawes throughout Christendome against the Will of Soveraign Princes They who seem most moderate and Cautelous among them are bad enough and deserve right well to have their workes inserted into the Rebells Catechisme If a Civill Law be hurtfull to the Soules of Subjects and the Prince will not abrogate it If another Civill Law be healthfull to the Soules of the Subjects and the Temporall Prince will not enact it The Pope as a Spirituall Prince may abrogate the one and establish the other For Civil power is inferiour and consequently subject to Spirituall power And The Ecclesiastick Republâ—ck ought to be perfect and sufficient to atteine its end But the power to dispose of things Temporall is necessary to atteine Spirituall ends And It is not lawfull to chuse an Infidel or Hereticall Prince but it is the same danger or dammage to chuse one who is no Christian and to tolerate one who is no Christian and the determination of the Question whether he be fit to be tolerated or not belongs to the Pope In good time From these premisses wee may well expect a necessary Collusion Who ever see such a Rope of Sand so incoherent to it self and consisting of such Heterogeneous parts composed altogether of mistakes Surely a man may conclude that either nocte pinxit The learned Author painted this Cypresse tree in the night or he hath a pittifull penurious Cause that will afford no better proofes But I hope the quarrel is dead or dying and with it much of that Animosity which it helped to raise in the World At least I must doe my Adversaryes in this cause that right I find them not Guilty of it Let it dye and the memory of it be extinguished for ever and ever Sect. I. Cap. VII So I passe over from the Popes Legislative power to his Iudiciary power Perhaps the Reader may expect to find something here of that great Controversy between Protestants and Papists whether the Pope be the last the highest the infallible Iudge of Controversies of faith with a Councell or without a Councell For my part I doe not find them so well agreed at home who this Iudge is All say it is the Church but in Determining what Church it is they differ as much as they and wee Some say it is the Essentiall Church by reception whatsoever the Vniversall Church receiveth is infallibly true Others â—ay it is the Representative Church that is a Generall councell Others say it is the Virtuall Church that it is the Pope Others say it is the Virtuall Church and the Representative Church together that is the Pope with a Generall Councell Lastly others say it is the Pope with any councell either Generall or Patriarchall or Provinciall or I thinke his College of Cardinalls may serve the turne And concerning his infallibility all men confesse that the Pope may erre in his Iudgement and in his Tenets as he is is a private Doctor but not in his Definitions SecoÌ„dly the most men doe acknowledge that he may erre in his Definitions if he Define alone without some Councell either generall or Particular Thirdly others goe yet higher that the Pope as Pope with a particular Councell may Define erroneously or heretically but not with a Generall Councell Lastly many of them which goe along with others for the Popes Infallibility doe it upon a Condition Si maturus procedat consilium audiat aliorum Pastorum If he proeeed maturely and hear the Counsell of other Pastors Indeed Bellarmine saith that if any man should demand Whether the Pope might erre if he defined rashly Without doubt they would all answer that the Pope could not define rashly But this is meer presumption without any colour of proofe I appeale to every rationall man of what communioÌ„ soever he be whether he who saith The Pope cannot erre if he proceed maturely upon due advise doe presume that the Pope cannot proceed immaturely or without due advise or not rather that he may proceed rashly and without due advise Otherwise the condition was vainly and suâ—eâ—fluously added frustra fit perplura quod fieri potest per pauciora But the truth is wee have nothing concerning this Question nor concerning any Iurisdiction meerly Spirituall in all the Statutes of Henry the eighth They doe all intend Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court of the Church Yet although nothing which he saith doth constrain me I will observe my wonted Ingenuity Wee give the Supreme Iudicature of Controversies of Faith to a Generall Councell and the Supreme Power of Spirituall Censures which are Coactive onely in the Court of conscience but if the Soveraign Prince shall approve or confirm the Acts of a generall Councell then they have a Coactive power in the Exteriour Court both Politicall aud Ecclesiasticall There is nothing that wee long after more then a generall Councell rightly called rightly proceeding or in defect of that a free Occidentall Councell as Generall as may be But then wee would have the Bishops to renounce that Oath which hath been obtruded upon them and the Councell to declare it void I. A. Bishop c. will be faithfull to St. Peter and to the Holy Apostolicall Church of Rome and to our Lord Pope Alexander c. I will be an assistent to retein and to defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter Where this Oath is esteemed Obligatory I doe not see how there can be a Free Councell But I retire my self to that which concerneth our present Question and the Lawes of Henry the eyghth concerning Iudiciary Power in the Exteriour Court of the Church The First Branch of this third Vsurpation s Whether the Bishop of Rome can receive Appeales from England and send for what English Subjects he pleaseth to Rome without the Kings leave The First President and the onely President that we have of any Appeale out of England to Rome for the First thousand yeares after Christ was that of Wilfrid Arch-Bishop of Yorke though to speak the truth that was rather an Equitable then a Legall appeale to the Pope as the onely Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in the west and an honorable arbitrator and a Faithfull Depositary of the Apostolicall Traditions not as a Superiour Iudge For neither were the Adverse Parties summoned to Rome nor any witnesses produced both
Matrimony of Cloysterers from their Vowes of Celibate of all sorts of persons from all Obligations Civill or sacred And whereas no Dispensation ought to be granted without just cause now there is no cause at all inquired after in the Court of Rome but onely the Price This is that which the nine choise Cardinalls laid so close to the conscience of Paul the third How Sacred and Venerable the Authority of the Lawes ought to be how unlawfull and pernicious it is to reape any gaine from the exercise of the Keys They inveigh sadly throughout against dispeÌ„satioÌ„s and among other things that Simoniacall persons were not affraid at Rome first to commit Simony and presently to goe buy an AbsolutioÌ„ and so reteine their Benefice Bina Venena juvant Two grosse Simonies make a title at Rome Thankes to the Popes dispensations But I must contract my discourse to those Dispensations which are intended in the Lawes of Henry the eight that is the power to dispense with English Lawes in the Exteriour Court Let him bindor loose inwardly whom he will whether his Key erre or not we are not concerned Secondly as he is a Prince in his own Territories he that hath power to bind hath power to loose He that hath power to make Lawes hath power to dispense with his own Lawes Lawes are made of Common Events Those benigne Circumstances which happen rarely are left to the dispensative Grace of the Prince Thirdly as he is a Bishop whatsoever dispensative power the ancient Ecclesiasticall Canons or Edicts of Christian Emperours give to the Bishop of Rome within those Territories which were subject to his Iurisdiction by Humane right we do not envy him So he suffer us to enjoy our ancient Privileges and Immunities freed from his encroachments and Vsurpations The Chief ground of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall Canon was Let the Old Customes prevaile A Possession or Prescription of eleven hâ—ndred yeares is a good ward both in Law and Conscience against humane Right and much more against a new pretense of divine right For eleven hundred yeares our Kings and Bishops enjoyed the â—ole dispensative power with all English Lawes Civill and Ecclesiasticall In all which time he is not able to give one Instance of a Papall Dispensation in England nor any shadow of it when the Church was formed Where the Bishops of Rome had no Legislative power no Iudiciary power in the Exteriour Court by necessary consequence they could have no Dispensative power The first reservation of any Case in England to the Censure and absolution of the Pope is supposed to have been that of Albericus the Popes Legate in an English Synod in the yeare 1138. Neque quisquam ei praeter Romanum Pontificem nisi mortis urgente periculo modum paenitenttae finalis injungat Let no man injoyn him the manner of finall Pennance but the Bishop of Rome except in danger of death But long before this indeed from the beginning our own Bishops as the most proper Iudges who lived upon the place and see the nature of the Crime and the degree of the Delinquents Penitence or Impenitence did according to equity relaxe the rigour of Ecclesiasticall Canons as they did all over the Christian world before the Court of Rome had usurped this gainfull Monopoly of Dispensations In the Lawes of Alured alone and in the conjoint Lawes of Alured and Guâ—thrun we see how many sortes of Ecclesiasticall crimes were dispeÌ„sed withall by the sole authority of the King and Church of England and satisfaction made at home to the King and to the Church and to the Party grieved or the Poore without any manner of reference at all to the Court of Rome or to any forrein Dispensation The like we find in the the lawes of some other Saxon Kings There needed no other paenitentiary taxe Dunstan the Arch-Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count He made his Peace at Rome and obteined the Popes Commaund for his restitution to the bosome of the Church Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I see him paenitent But it is not Gods will that he should lie in his sinne free from Ecclesiasticall discipline to insuâ—t over us God forbid that I should relinquish the law of Christ for the cause of any mortall man Roman dispensations were not in such Request in those daies The Church of England dispensed with those Nunnes who had fled to their Nunneries not for the love of religioÌ„ but had takeÌ„ the veile upon them meerly for feare of the French and this with the counseile of the King in the daies of Lanfranke and with Queene Maud the wyfe of HeÌ„ry the First in the like case in the daies of Anselme without any suite to Rome for a forreine dispensatioÌ„ There can be nothing more pernicious then where the sacred Name of Law is prostituted to avaricious ends Where Statutes or Canons are made like Pitfals or Traps to catch the Subjects by their purses where profitable faults are cherished for private Advantage by Mercinary Iudges as beggers doe their sores The Roman Rota doth acknowledge such ordinary avaricious Dispensations to be Odious things The Delected Cardinalls make them to be sacrilegious things an unlawfull selling of the power of the Keys Commonly they are called Vulnera Legum The woâ—nds of the Lawes And our Statutes of Provisers doe stile them expresly the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land The King the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the whole Common wealth of England complained of this abuse as a mighty Grievance Of the frequent comming among them of this infamous Messenger the Popes Non Obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customes Writings Grants Statutes Rights Privileges were not onely weakened but exinanited Sometimes these Dispensative Bulls came to legall Tryalls and were condemned By the Law of the Land the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visiter of the Vniversity of Oxford Boniface the eyght by his Bull dispeÌ„sed with this law and exeÌ„pted the Vniversity from the Iurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop Whereupon there grew a Controversy and the Bull was decreed voide in Parliament by two succeding Kings as being obtained to the Prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome in favour of Lollards and hereticks and the probable Ruine of the said Vniversity How the Liberties of France and the Lawes and Customes of England doe accord in condemning this Vsurpation wee have seen formerly The power of the Pope is not absolute in France but limitâ—ed and restrained by the Canons of Ancient Councells If it be Limitted and restrained by Ancient Canons then it is not Paramount above the Canons then it is not dispensative to give Non Obstante's to the Canons And the Popes Legate may not execute his Commission before he have promised under his Oath upon his holy Orders that he will not attempt any thing in the exercise of his Legantine power to
Court of the Church whereby men are compelled against their wills by Exteriour Meanes This the Apostles had not froÌ„ Christ nor their Successours froÌ„ them Neither did Christ ever assume any such power to him self in the world My Kingdome is not of this world And Man who made me a Iudge or divider over you Yet the greatest Controversies at this day in the Ecclesiasticall Court are about Possessions as Glebes Tithes Oblations Portions Legacies Administrations c. And if it were not for these the rest would not be so much valued in Criminibus non in Possessionibus potestas vestra quontam propter illa non propter has accepistis Claves regni Caelorum Saith St. Bernard well to the Pope Your power is in Crimes not in possessions for those and not for these you received the Keys of the kingdome of Heaven But suppose the Controversy to be about a Crime Yet who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison or punish them for not appearing without his leave All that power which Ecclesiasticall Iudges have of Externall Coaction they owe it wholy either to the Submission of the parties where the Magistrate is not Christian as the Iewes at this day doe undergoe such Penitentiall Acts as are enjoined them by their Superiours because the Reverence of them who obey doth supply the defects of their power who Command Or where the Magistrate is Christian they owe it to his Gracious Concessions Of which if any Man doubt and desire to see how this Coactive power how these externall Privileges did first come to be enjoyed by Ecclesiasticall persons Let him read over the first booke of the Code and the Authenticks or Novels of Iustinian And for our English Church in Particular let him consult with our best Historiographers Eadmerus was one whom they need not suspect of partiality as being Pope Vrbanes own Creature and by his speciall appointment placed over Anselm at his own intreaty as a Superviser to exercise his Obedience Whose injunctions had so much power over him that if he placed him in his Bed he would not onely not rise without his Command but not so much as turn him self from one side to another Vt cum Cubili locasset non solum sine praecepto ejus non surgereâ— sed nec latus inverteret What Marvell is it if the ancient Liberties of the English Church went first to wrack in Anselms Dayes about the Yeare of our Lord 1000 for he died Anno 1109 who being a Stranger Primate had so totally surrendered up his own reason to the Popes Creature Yet this Eadmerus saith of Lanfranke His wisdome recovered other Customes which the Kings of England by their Munificence had granted to the Church of Canterbury in ancient times and established them for ever by their sacred Decrees that it might be most free in all things All externall exemption and Coaction is Politicall and proceedeth originally from the Soveraign Prince This is that which S. Paul teacheth us The weapons of our warfare are not Carnall The weapons of the Church are Spirituall not worldly not externall But Citations and Compulsories and Significavits and Writs ad excommunicatum capiendum which are not written by the Bishops own hand yet at his beck and Apparitors and Iaolers c Are Weapons of this world and tend to externall Coaction For all which the Church is beholden to the Civill power to whom alone externall Coaction doth properly and originally belong This is that which St. Chrysostome observed in his comparison between a Bishop and a Shepheard It is not lawfull to cure men with so great Authority as the Shepheard cureth his Sheep For it is free for the Shepheard to bind his sheep to drive them from their meat to burn them to cut them But in the case of the Bishop the Faculty of curing consisteth not in him who administreth the Phisick but in him that is sick c. St. Chrysost. speaketh of power purely Spirituall which extendeth it self no further theÌ„ the Court of conscieÌ„ce where no man can be cured against his will But Soveraign Princes have found it expedieÌ„t for the good both of the Church and of the Commonwealth to strengthen the Bishops haÌ„ds by imparting some of their Politicall authority to him from whose gracious indulgence all that externall coactive power which Bishops have doth proceed Now to apply this to our purpose Wheresoever our Lawes doe deny all Spirituall Iurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sense that wee call the exteriour Court of the Churâ—h the Spirituall Court They doe not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the Keys or of any Spirituall power that was bequeathed unto him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy Yea even in relation to England it self Our Parliaments never did pretend to any power to change or Abridge divine right Thus much our very Proviso in the body of our Law doth testify that it was no part of our meaning to vary from the Articles of the Catholick Faith in any thing Nor to vary from the Church of Christ in any other thing declared by the holy Scripture and the word of God necessary to salvation If wee have taken away any thing that is of divine right it was retracted before it was done Then followeth the true Scope of our Reformation Onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice and for good Conservation of the Realm in peace unity and tranquillity from ravine and spoile insuing much the ancient Customes of this Realm in that behalf That wich professed it self a Politick Ordinance doth not meddle with Spirituall Jurisdiction If it had medled with Spirituall Iurisdiction at all it had not insued the ancient Customes of the Realm of England In summe that externall Papall power which we rejected and cast out and which onely we cast out is the same which the English Bishops advised Aâ—selm to renounce when it was attempted to be obtruded upon the Kingdome But know that all the Kingdome complaineth against thee that thou endeavourest to take away from our Common Maister the Flowers of his Imperiall Crown Whosoever takes away the Customes which pertein to his royall dignity doth take away his Crown and Government together for we prove that one cannot be decently had without the other But we beseech the consider and cast away thy Obedience to that Vrban who cannot help the if the King be offended nor hurt thee if the King be pacified Shake of the yoke of Subjection and freely as it becomes an Arch-bishop of Canterbury in all thy Actions expect the Kings pleasure and Commands What soever power our Lawes did divest the Pope of they invested the King with it but they never invested the King with any Spirituall power or Iurisdiction witnesse the Injunctions of Queen Elisabeth witnesse the publick Articles of
whole Circuit of Cathage with a Bulls hide by her art so he within his First Movership can comprehend the Patronage of the English Church and the right to Convocate and dissolve and confirm English Synods and to invalidate old Oaths and to impose new Oaths of Allegiance and to receive Tenths and first fruits and all Legislative Judiciary and dispensative power Coactively in the exteriour Court of the Church over English Subjects He cannot plead any Charter from England we never made any such Grant and althoâ—gh we had yet considering how infinitely prejudiciall it is to the Publick Tranquility of the Kingdome we might and ought more advisedly to retract what we unadvisedly once resolved And for Prescription he is so far to seek that there is aâ— cleare Prescription of eleven hundred Yeares against him So there is nothing remaineth for him to stick to but his empty pretense of divine Right which is more ridiculous then all the rest to claime a divine right of such a Soveraign power which doth branch it self into so many particulars after eleven hundred Yeares which for so many Ages had never been acknowledged never practised in the English Church either in whole or in part We cannot believe that the whole Christian world were Mole-eyed or did sit in darknesse for so many Centuries of years untill Pope Hildebrand and Pope Paschalis did start up like two new Lights with their Weapons in their hands to thumpe Princes and knock them into a right Catholick beliefe And indeed this Answer to his pretended demonstration by a reall demonstration where the true Controversie doth lye and who are the true innovators doth virtually answer whatsoever he hath said So I might justly stop here and sâ—spend my former paines but that I have a great mind to try if I can find out one of those many Falsifications and Contradictions which he would make ns believe he hath espied in my discourse if it be not the deception of his sight First he telleth us that our best Champions doe grant that our faith and its grounds are but probable Surely he did write this between sleeping and waking when he could not well distinguish between necessary points of faith and indifferent Opinions concerning points of faith Or to use Cajetans expression between determinare de fideformaliter and determinare de eo quod est fidei Materialiter Between points of faith necessary to be believed And such Questions as doe sometimes happen in things to be believed As for Essentialls of faith the Pillars of the Earth are not founded more firmly then our beliefe upon that undoubted Rule of Vincentius Quicquid ubique semper ab omnibus c. Whatsoever we believe as an Article of our faith we have for it the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and therein the Church of Rome it self But they have no such perpetuall or Vniversall Tradition for their twelve new Articles of Pope Pius This Objection would have become me much better then him Whatsoever we believe they believe and all the Christian World of all Places and all Ages doth now believe and ever did believe except condemned Hereticks But they endeavour to obtrâ—de new Essentialls of faith upon the Christian World which have no such Perpetuall no such Vniversall Tradition He that accuseth another should have an eye to himself Does not all the World see that the Church of England stands now otherwise in order to the Church of Rome then it did in Henry the sevenths dayes He addeth further that it is confessed that the Papall power in Ecclesiastical affaires was cast out of EnglaÌ„d in Henry the eights dayes I answer that there was no Mutation concerniâ—g faith nor concerning any Legacy which Christ left to his Church nor concerning the power of the Keys or any Iurisdiction purely Spirituall but concerning coactive power in the exteriour Court concerning the Politicall or Externall RegimeÌ„t of the Church concerning the Patronage or civill Soveraignty over the Church of EnglaÌ„d and the Legislative Iudiciary and Dispensative power of the Pope in EnglaÌ„d over English Subjects Which was no more then a Reinfranchisement of ourselves from the upstart Vsurpations of the Court of Rome Of all which I have shewed him expresly the first source who began them when and where before which he is not able to give one instance of any such Practises attempted by the Bishop of Rome and admitted by the Church of England Who it is that lookes asquint or awry upon the true case in Controversy between us let the ingenuous Reader Iudge I doe not deny nor ever did deny but that there was a reall separation made yea made by us from their Vsurpations but I both did deny and doe deny that there was any SeparatioÌ„ made by us from the Institution of Christ or from the Principles of Christian Vnity This Separation was made long since by themselves when they first introduced those novelties into the Church and this Seperation of theirs from the pure Primitive Doctrine and Discipiine of the Church doth acquit us and render them guilty of the Schisme before God and man And therefore it is a vain and impertinent Allegation of him to tell us that Governours may lawfully declare themselves publickly and solemnly against the renouncers of their Authority by Excommunication unlesse he could shew that the Bishop of Rome hath such an absolute Soveraignty over us as he imagineth extending it self to all those Acts which are in Controversy between us And that in the exercise of the power of the Keys they proceded duely in a legall manner And especially that they did not mistake their own Vsurpation for the Institution of Christ as we affirm and know they did His whole Discourse about immediate Tradition is a bundle of uncertain presumptions and vain Suppositions First he supposeth that his Rule of so vast a multitude of Eye-witnesses of Visible things is uniform and vniversall but he is quite mistaken the practiâ—e was different The Papalms made Lawes for their Vsurpations and the three Orders of the Kingdome of England made Lawes against them To whom in Probability should our Ancestors adhere to their owâ— Patriots or to Strangers Secondly he presumeth that this uniform practise of his Ancestors was invariable without any shadow of Change but it was nothing lesse First Investitures were in the Crown and an Oath of Fidelity made to the King without any Scruple even by Lanfranke and Anselm both Strangers Afterwards the Investitures were decried as profane and the Oath of Fidelity forbidden Next a new Oath of Allegiance was devised of Clergimen to the Pope First onely for Archbishops then for all Prelates And this Oath at first was moderate to observe the Rules of the holy Fathers but shortly after more Tyrannous to maintain the Roâ—alties of Sainct Peter as their own Pontificalls the old and the new do witnesse First when they tooke away Investitures from the Crown they were all
the Lawes and histories of his native Country If he had perused them diligently he might have observed how the Court of Rome and Crown of England were long upon their Gards watching one another and the one or the other gained or lost mutually according to the Vigour of their present Kings or Popes or according to the exigence of the times His seventh Objection that the like Lawes to ours in England were made in the Papacy it self but those could not be against the Popes Headship of the Church and his tenth Objection that then there never was a Papist Country in the world because equivaleÌ„t Lawes to ours were made in France Spaine Italy Sicily Gormany Poland c and his answer to my demand what law full Iurâ—sdiction could remaine to the Pope in England where such and such Lawes had force The same that remaines still to him in France Spaine Italy where the like lawes are in force in his last paragraph are a dish of unsavoury mushromes all sprung up from his own negligent mistake or wilfull Falsification let him chuse whether he will in confounding the Lawes of Mortmain with the other Lawes against the Popes Vsurpations Which I distinguished exactly both at the beginning of that discourse the Statute of Mortmain justified and at the Conclusion But to leave this Digression But besydes this grosse errour there want not other inconsequences and fallacies in his discourse as in his seventh Objection from the Popes particular Headship of his own Church to an Vniversall Headship over the Catholick Church and from an Headship of order to a Monarchicall Headship of power and in his tenth Objection from like lawes to the same Lawes from Lawes made to Lawes duely observed We had Lawes made against Non-conformists in England will he conclude thence that we have no Non-conformists in England the Argument would hold better the Contrary way Ex malis moribus bonae leges And in his last Paragraph from Coactive Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court to Iurisdiction purely Spirituall in the Court of Conscience and from Coactive Iurisdiction with the leave of the Prince to the same without Leave Wee see all Roman Catholick Countries doe stint the Popes Coactive Iurisdiction over their Subjects more or lesse according to their severall Liberties which they could not doe at all if he held it by Christs own Ordination His eighth Objection that upon this new Law made by Henry the eighth England stood at another distance then formerly from Rome is a Fallacy non causae pro causa when a false cause is assigned for a true cause Our just Lawes are not the right cause of our distance from Rome but the Popes unjust Censures and that Character which some of our Countrimen give of us But this distance is greater among the Populacy then between the Estates who do not much regard the Popes Censures either in making or observing of Leagues To his ninth Objection in his order and his last in my order that this Posiâ—â—on takes away the Question and makes all the Controvertists in England on both sides talke in the aire because it makes the Pope to have had no Authority there to be cast out I answer I wish it did but it doth not The Pope had Authority there and Authority usurped fit to be cast out notwithstanding our former good Lawes But yet I must confesse this Position doth much change the Question from spirituall Iurisdiction in the inner Court to Coactive Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court and makes him and many other such Controvertists talk in the aire who dispute onely about Headships and First Moverships when the true Controversy lieth in point of Interest and profit Sect. 4. That the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrein Iurisdiction for the first six hundred years and so ought to continue After I had shewed the Equality of the Apostles except onely a Priority of Order and that the Supremacy of power did not rest in any single Apostolicall College that Nationall Patriarchs were the highest Order constituted by the Apostles in the Church and how some Patriarchs came to be advanced above others with the true dignity or Preheminence of Apostolicall Churches the summe of all the rest of this Section might be reduced to a Syllogisme Those Churches which were exempted from all forrain Iurisdiction for the first 600 years cannot be subjected to any forrain Iurisdiction for the future against their own wills But all the Britannick Churches were ever exempted from forrain Iurisdiction for the first six hundred yeares The Major Proposition was proved by me undeuiably out of the first Generall Councell of Ephesus to which Mr. Serjeant hath objected nothing Next I proved the Minor First by Prescription Affirmanti incumbit probatio The burthen of the proofe in Law resteth upon the Affirmer but they are not able to shew so much as one single act of Iurisdiction which ever any Bishop of Rome did in Brittaign for the first six hundred yeares Secondly I proved it from the Antiquity of the Britannick Church which was ancienter then the Roman it self and therefore could not be subject to the RomaÌ„ from the beginning Thirdly because the Britannick Churches sided with the Eastern Churches against the Roman and therefore were not subject to the Roman Foâ—rthly because they had their Ordinations ordinarily at home which is an infallible sign of a free Church subject to no Forrein Iurisdiction Lastly because they renounced all Subjection to the Bishop of Rome I am forced to repeat thus much to let the Reader see the contexture of my discourse which Mr. Serjeant doth whatsoever he can to conceale or at least to confound and disjoint Out of this he picketh here and there what he pleaseth First he pleadeth that my Title is the Vindication of the Church of England but the Church of England can derive no title from the Britannick or Scottish Churches He never read or quite forgetteth the State of the QuestioÌ„ I will help his memory Let him read the Vindication by the Church of England we understand not the English Nation alone but the English dominion including the British and Scotish or Irish Christians So at unawares he hath yielded the Bishopricks of Chester Hereford Worcester for all these were Suffragans to Carleon Wales Cornwall Ireland Scotland with all the adjacent Ilands that is to say two third parts of the English Dominion Secondly he pleadeth that for this many hundred yeares they acknowledged the Popes Authority as well as the Church of England I answer that this will doe him no good nor satisfy the Generall Councell of Ephesus at all which hath decreed expresly in the case of the Cyprian Prelates and they Command the same to be observed in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors and if any doe occupy another Province that in this case let him restore it
Subjection at all to another Church They all agree in this the Britons were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all waies ordained at home independent upon any forrain Prelate ought no subjection to Rome And there fore it is no great wonder if Pope Gregory did not know when he was the favourite both of the Pope and people not long before his own promotion to the Papacy whether the Ilanders of Britain were Pagans or Christians To the same purpose speaketh Nicolas Trevet who having commended this Dinoth for a learned and a prudent man he addeth that Austin meeting him did demand that they should performe subjection to him as a Legate sent into this Land by the Pope and Court of Rome and demanded further that he would help him in preaching but he denied the one and the other Still Subjection is denied With these Baleus writing of Dinoth and the life of Austin in Sr. Henry Spellman and all our Antiquaries doe agree exactly And none of our Historiographers that I know doe disagree from it in the least who write upon that subject though some set it down more fully then others Iudge now Reader of Mr. Serjeants Knowledge or Ingenuity who telleth the so Confidently that the right of Subjection never came into play and when I said the British Clergy did renounce all obedieÌ„ce to the Bishop of Rome citing Bede and all others telleth me so confidently that I belied Bede and all our Historiographers at once I challenge him to name but one Historiographer who affirmeth the contrary to that which all these doe affirm if he be not able as he is not I might safely say without asking him leave that it striketh the Question dead His third Exception that it appeareth not that Sr. Henry Spellman found any other Antiquity in that Welsh Manuscript worth mentioning is so dull and unsignificant a piece that I will neither trouble myself nor the Reader with it And such like are his other Obâ—ections which helpresseth not but toucheth gently the Heads of them will not merit a repetition having been answered already by Doctor Hammond But when he is baffeld in the cause he hath a Reserve that Venerable Bede and Gildas and Fox in his Acts and Monuments do brand the Britons for wicked men making them as good as Atheists Of which Gang if this Dinoth were one he will neither wish the Pope such Friends nor envy them to the Protestants What needed this when he hath got the worst of the cause to revenge himself like a Pinece with a stinke We read no other Character of Dinoth but as of a pious learned and prudent man If Gildas or Bede have spoken any thing to the prejudice of the Britons it was not intended against the whole Nation but against particular persons There were St. Davids St. Dubricius's St. Thelaâ—s's St. Oudoceus's and Dinoths as well as such persons as are intended by Gildas or Beda What have they said more of the Britons then God himself and his Prophets have spoken of his own people or more then the Saxons have said one of another or more then maybe retorted upon any NatioÌ„ in Europe Have Gildas or Beda said more of the Birions theÌ„ St. Bernard and others have said of the Irish and yet Ireland was deservedly called the Island of Saints The Question is whether the British Church did ever acknowledge any Subjection to the Bishop of Rome Let him adorn this Sparta and leave other impertinencies Sect. V. That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdrawe their obedience from Rome The sixth Chapter of my Vindication comprehended my fourth ground consisting of these three particulars That the King and Church of England had sufficient Authority to reform the Church of England That they had sufficient Grounds for doing it And that they did it with due moderation His Rejoinder to this my fourth ground is divided into three SectioÌ„s whereof this is the first Whatsoever he prateth in this Section of my shuffing away the whole Question by balking the Bishop of Romes divine right to his Soveraignty of power to treat of his Patriarchall right which is humane is first vain For I alwayes was and still am ready to joine Issne with him concerning the Bishop of Romes divine right to a Monarchicall power in the Church saving alwaies to myself and my cause this advantage That a Monarchy and a Patriarchate of the same person in the same Body Ecclesiasticall are inconsistent And this right being saved I shall more willingly join issue with him about the Popes Monarchy then about his Patriarchate Secondly as it is vaine so it is altogether impertinent for my Ground is this that a Soveraign Prince hath power within his own Dominions for the publick good to change any thing in the externall Regiment of the Church which is not of divine Institution but the Popes pretended Patronage of the English Church and his Legislative Iudiciary and dispensative power in the exteriour Courtes of the same Church doe concern the externall Regiment of the Church aud are not of divine Institution Here the Hindge of our Controversy doth move without encombring our selves at all with Patriarchall Authority Thirdly I say that this discourse is not onely vaine and extravagant but is likewise false The Popes Protopatriarchall power and the Authority of a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church as the keper of Apostolicall Traditions deposited in that Church are the fairest flowers in his Garland Whatsoever power he pretendeth to over the whole Church of Christ above a Primacy of Order is altogether of humane right and the Application of that Primacy to the Bishop of Rome is altogether of humane right And whatsoever he presumeth of the Vniversall Tradition of the Christian Church or the Notion which the former and present world and we our selves before the Reformation had of the Papacy that is of the Divine right of the Popes Soveraignty is but a bold ratling groundlesse bragge I did and doe affirm that the Pope hath quitted his Patriarchichall power above a thousand yeers since not explicitly by making a formall Resignation of it but implicitly by assuming to himself a power which is inconsistent with it I was contented to forbeare further disputing about Patriarchall rights upon two Conditions one that he should not presume that the Pope is a Spirituall Monarch without proving it The other that he should not attempt to make Patriarchall Privileges to be Royall Prerogatives This by one of his peculiar Idiotisms he calleth Bribing of me If he had had so much Civility in him he might rather have interpreted it a gentle forewarning of him of two Errours which I was sure he would Commit After all his Bravadoes all that he hath pretended to prove is but a Headship a First Movership a Chief Governourship about which we have no Difference with them and all the proofe he bringeth even of that is a bold presumption that there
rejected be the Legacies of Christ or Papall VsurpatioÌ„s is not capable of such rigorous Demonstration but dependeth upon Testimony which Logicians call an Inartificiall way of arguing But if by rigorous Demonstration he uâ—derstand convincing proofes those grounds which I offer in this Section do contain a rigorous Demonstration That Discipline which is brimfull of intollerable Rapine and Extortion and Simony and Sacrilege which robbeth Kings and Subjects Ecclesiasticall and Secular of their just rights which was introduced into the Church of England eleven hundred yeares after Christ which hath a Malignant Influence upon the Body Politick which is Destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall Discipline which in stead of securing men in peace doth thrust them into Manifest and manifold Dangers both of soule and body which is contrary to Generall Councells and the ancient Liberties of particular Churches qua talis as it is such is no Legacy of Christ but ought to be purged and reformed from all such abuses and VsurpatioÌ„s But such is that Papall Discipline which the Bishop of Rome excercised in EnglaÌ„d before the Reformation and lesse then which they will not goe and such are all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out The truth of this AssertioÌ„ I have made manifest in my Vindication c. 6 and this is the place of a further examination of it if he did discharge the part of a faire solid Disputant to leave his windy Invectives which signify nothing to the cause but to his own shame and to proceed closely and ingenuously to the investigation of truth without prejudice or partiality But on the Contrary he minceth my grounds and concealeth them and skippeth over whatsoever disliketh him and choppeth them and chaÌ„geth them and confoundeth them that I caÌ„not know mine own Conceptions againe as he hath dressed them aÌ„d disordered them and mutilated them I proposed five distinct Grounds of our ReformatioÌ„ aÌ„d casting out so many Branches as we did of Papall power if he dealt like a just Adversary he should pursue my Method step by step but he reduceth my five grounds into three that between two Methods he may conceale and smother whatsoever he hath no disposition to answer as he dealeth with many points of weight and moment and particularly with all those Testimonies and instances I bring to prove the intolerable extortions and manifold Vsurpations and malignant Influence of the Roman Coutt upon the Body Politick and Ecclesiastick being much the greater part of my discourse But I doe not altogether blame him for they are so foule that a man can find small credit or contentment in defending them For once rather then loose his Company I will pursue his Method Let us give him the hearing He reduceth my five grounds to three first such as entrench upon Eternity and Conscience May not any Heretick object that the Church imposed new Articles of faith c. or complain of new Creeds when she addeth to her publick Professions some points of Faith held formerly Might not he Complaine of perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for Surplesses c Might not he pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks were good Christians and that the Church was Tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might he not shuffle together Faith with Opinion and falsly allege as you doe here you were forced to approve the Popes Rebellion against Generall Councells and take Oaths to maintain Papall Vsurpations This is all the Answer I get of this brave Disputant as if the unjust complaints of the Puritans did satisfy the just exceptions of the Protestants It is probable enough that he him self was one of our Brother Puritans in those dayes otherwise he could not well have talked so wildly of perill of Idolatry from Surplesses His discourse is so sleight and impertinent that I will not vouchsafe any answer but leave it to the Reader to compare my Vindication and Reply with his Rejoinder That they have added new Essentialls to Faith is fully evinced against them in this Treatise Sect. 1. cap. 11. What our Iudgement is concerning their Idolatry he shall find exactly set down in my answer to Militier Pa. 133. As for the Oaths of Fidelity which every Bishop must make to the Pope he may satisfy him self Sect. 1. Cap. 5. and see the From of it cap 7. Or if he Desire to see a later form let him take this I Henry Archbishop of Canterbury will be faithfull and Obedient to St. Peter from this houre as formerly and to the holy Apostolick Church of Rome and to my Lord Pope Alexander the sixth and his Successours I will give no counsaile nor consent nor act any thing towards the losse of their lifes or members or liberty I will discover their Counsailes to no man to their prejudice which they have communicated to me by themselves or their Messengers I will help them to retein and defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of St. Peter saving my Order against all men I will entertein the Popes Legates honorably going and comming and help them in their necessities I will visit the Papall Court every yeare if it be on this side the Alpes and every two yeares if it beyond the Alpes unlesse the Pope dispense with me So help me God and the Holy Gospell What fidelity can a King expect from a Subject who hath taken this Oath if the Pope please to attempt any thing against him If the Popes Superiority above a Generall Councell be but held as an indifferent Opinion in their Church and not a point of Faith as he intimateth yet it is such an Opinion as he dare not contradict it is fere communis it is almost the Common OpinioÌ„ of all RomaÌ„ Catholicks if Bellarmine say true and fere de fide almost a point of Faith upoÌ„ which modern Popes and Councells are accorded It is determined expresly in their last Generall Councell of LateraÌ„ that the Bishop of Rome alone hath Authority over all Councells Were these all the grounds he could find which entrench upon Eternity and Conscience He might have found more that by means of Papall abuses there described hospitality was not kept the poore not susteined the word not preached churches not adorned the Cure of soules neglected divine Offices not performed Churches ruined He might have found Oaths Customes writings grants statutes rights privileges to have been not onely weakened but exinanited by the Popes infamous Messenger called Non obstance And all this attested by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the whole Common-wealth of England But it is no matter whether he take notice of it or not whilest he answereth nothing He faith my second sort of Grounds are those which relate to Temporall inconveniences and injuries to the State by reason of the Popes pretended encroachments which I huddle together in big Terms Do I huddle theÌ„ together Nay I haÌ„dled them distinctly under three heads or notions First the intolerable
Represētative Church that is a Generall Councell or Synod nor the Executive headship of each Patriarch in his Patriarchate nor the Bishop of Romes headship of Order among them and thus this great Objection is vanished By this he may see that we have introduced no new Form of Ecclesiasticall Government into the Church of England but preserved to every one his due right if he will accept of it and that we have the same Dependence upon our Ecclesiasticall Superiours which we had evermore from the Primitive times He chargeth us that we give no certain Rule to know which is a Generall Councell which not or who are to be called to a Generall Councell There is no need why we should give any new Rules who are ready to observe the old Rules of the Primitive Church Generall Summons to all the Patriarchs for them and their Clergy Generall Admittance of all Persons capable to discusse freely and to define freely according to their distinct Capacities and lastly the presence of the five Protopatriarchs and their Clergy either in their persons or by their suffrages or in case of Necessity the greater part of them doe make a Generall Councell Whilest we set this rule before us as our pattern and swerve not from it but onely in case of invincible Necessity we may well hope that God who looketh upon his poore Servants with all their Prejudices and expecteth no more of them then he hath enabled them to performe who hath promised that where two or three are gathered together in his name there will he be in the midst of them Will vouchsafe to give his assistence and his Blessing to such a Councell which is as Generall as may be although perhaps it be not so exactly Generall as hath been or might have been now if the Christian Empire had flourished still as it did anciently In summe I shall be ever ready to acquiesce in the Determinaation of a Councell so Generall as is possible to be had so it may be equall not having more Iudges of one Country then all the rest of the Christian world as it was in the Councell of Trent but regulated by the equall votes of Christian Nations as it was in the Councells of Constance and Basile and so as those Nations which cannot in probability be personally present may be admitted to send their Votes and Suffrages as they did of old and lastly so it may be free called in a free place whither all parties may have secure accesse and Liberty to propose freely and define freely according to the Votes of the Fathers without being stinted or curbed or overruled by the Holy Ghost sent in a Curriers Budget And for the last part of his exception that Hereticks should not be admitted I for my part should readily consent provided that none be reputed Hereticks but such as true Generall Councells have evidently declared to be Hereticks or such as will not pronounce an Anathema against all old Heresies which have been condemned for Heresies by undoubted Generall Councells But to imagin that all those should be reputed Hereticks who have been condemned of Heresy or Schisme by the Roman Court for their own interest that is foure parts of five of the Christian world is silly and senselesse and argueth nothing but their fear to come to a faire impartiall Tryall And this is a full answer to that which he allegeth out of Doctor Hammond that Generall Councells are now morally impossible to be had the Christian world being under so many Empires and Divided into so many Communions It is not credible that the Turke will send his Subjects that is four of the Protopatriarchs with their Clergy to a Generall Councell or allow them to meet openly with the rest of Christendome in a Generall Councell it being so much against this own Interest but yet this is no impediment why the Patriarchs might not deliver the Sense and Suffrages of their Churches by Letters or by Messengers and this is enough to make a Councell Generall In the First Councell of Nice there were onely five Clergymen present out of the Western Churches In the Great Councell of Chalcedon not so many In the Councells of Constantinople and Ephesus none at all And yet have these four Councells evermore been esteemed truly Generall because the Western Church did declare their consent and concurrence Then as there have been Generall Orientall Councells without the personall presence of a Western Bishop so there may be an Occidētall Councell without the personall presence of one Eastern Bishop by the sole Communication of their sense and their Faith Neither is such Communication to be deemed impossible considering what correspondence the Muscovian Church did hold long with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Abyssine hath long held and doth still hold with the Patriarch of Alexandria It is cōfessed that there are too many different Communions in Europe it may be some more then there is any great cause for and perhaps different Opinions where there is but one Communion as difficult to be reconciled as different Communions But many of these Mushrome Sects are like those inorganicall Creatures bred upon the Bankes of Nilus which perished quickly after they were bred for want of fit Organs The more considerable parties and the more capable of reason are not so many if these could be brought to acquiesce in the determination of a free Generall Councell they would towe the other like lesser Boats after them with ease No man wil say that the Vnity of the Church in point of Government doth consist onely in their actuall subordination to Generall Councells Generall Councells are extraordinary Remedies proper for curing or composing new differences of great Concernment in Faith or discipline That being done Generall Councells may prove of more Danger then use No healthfull man delighteth in a continuall course of Phisick But Vnity consisteth also and Ordinarily in Conformity and submission to that discipline which Generall Councells have recommended to us either as the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles or as Ecclesiasticall Policies instituted by them with the Concurrence or Confirmation of Christian Soveraigns for the publick good of the Catholick Church He chargeth us that we have so formed Gods Church that there is no meanes left to asssemble a Generall Councell having renounced his Authority whose proper Office it was to call a Generall Councell His errours seldome come single but commonly by Clusters or at least by paires What height of Confidence is it to affirm that it is the proper Office of the Pope to call Generall all Councells when all ingenuous men doe acknowledge that all the First Generall Councells were Ab Imperatoribus Indicta Called by Emperours To which the Popes Friends adde that it was by the Advise and with the Consent of the Pope And Bellarmine gives diverse reasons why it could not be otherwise First because there was a Law which did forbid frequent Assemblyes for feare af Sedition Secondly
cited the words of St. Bernard to prove that the Pope was not Lord or Maister of other Bishops and the Roman Church a Mother of other Churches not a Lady or Mistresse He distinguisheth between Dominam and Magistram an Imperious proud Lady Mistrisse and a Schoole-Mistresse or Teacheresse Adding that they use the word Magistram in the latter sense So they say no more then we we do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Teacheresse and the Pope a Teacher as it is an Apostolicall Church and he an Apostolicall Bishop but all the Question is of the other word Dominum which the Pope taketh to him self as well as Magistrum as we have seen in the Oath of Allegiance which he makes all Bishops to sweare Neither doth St. Bernard oppose proud Imperious Dominion to Gentle Dominion but he contradistinguisheth Dominion to no Dominion and thy self not a Lord of other Bishops but one of them Not a Lord of other Bishops saith St. Bernard A Lord of other Bishops saith the Oath of Fidelity I will be faithfull to our Lord Pope Alexander He urgeth that the Bishop hath brought a Testimony which asserts the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches and so of the Church of England too St. Bernard asserted the Church of Rome to be the Mother of other Churches so did the Bishop but not to be the Mother of all other Churches no more did the Bishop particularly not of the Church of Britain which was ancienter then the Church of Rome and so could not be her daughter Let them prove their right that they are our Mother and we are ready to doe our filiall Duty saving alwayes that Higher duty which we owe to our Mother Paramount the Vniversall Church But neither can they prove their right that they are our Mother neither is that Subjection which they Demand the Subjection due to a particular Mother but to an Vniversall Lord. But Schisme involves in its Notion disobedieÌ„ce c. And so the Bishop concludes the Mother Schismaticall because she is disobedient to her Daughter His first errour is to make the Church of Rome to be our Mother The second to thinke that a Mother may challenge what Obedience she listeth of her Daughter The third that Schisme consisteth altogether in the Disobedience of Subjects Causall Schisme may and doth Ordinarily consist in the unlawfuli Injunctions of Superiours My second reason to convince them as guilty of Schisme was the new Creed set out by Pius the fourth This he calleth a Calumny He cannot speake lower then Calumnies Absurdities Contradictions Falsifications c. A high Calumny to slander them with a matter of truth It is such a Calumny as they will never be able to shake of He referreth the Reader to what he hath said in the first Section and I to my Answer there He saith it is known that each point in that profession of Faith that is the twelve new Articles was held of Faith by the former Church How held of Faith as an Essentiall of Faith And this known to whom to the man in the Moone But here is the maddest Contradiction that ever was and might well have become his Merry Stationer It is a Contradiction to pretend that he Pius the 4. made a new Creed till it be shewn that any of these points was not formerly of Faith and be proved satisfactorily that the Apostles Creed conteined all necessary points of Faith A Contradiction I see many men talke of Robin Hood who never shot in his Bowe talke of Contradictions who know not what they are Observe the equity of these men They Visibly insert 12 new Articles into the Creed and then would put us to prove that they were not of Faith before and that all necessary points of Faith are contained in the Apostles Creed He is resolved to keep two strings to his Bowe and knoweth not which of them to trust to Heare you Sr. If they be Articles of Faith now as you have made them then they were alwayes Articles of Faith and all those were damned which did not believe them but that you dare not say My third Charge of Schisme was because they mainteine the Pope in his Rebellion against Generall Councells Here he distinguisheth between a Schooleman and a Controvertist to no manner of purpose for it is altogether impertinent There is no man who inveigheth so much against wording aÌ„d Quibling as himself and yet the world hath not a greater Worder or Quibler then he is Wherefore to prevent the Readers trouble and mine own and his shifting and flinching and to tye him within his Compasse perforce I made bold to reduce my Argument to a Syllogisticall Forme They who subject a Generall Councell which is the Highest Tribunall of Christians to the Pope are guilty of Schisme But the Pope and Court of Rome with all their mainteiners that is much the Greater part of of their writers doe subject a Generall Councell to the Pope Therefore the Pope and Court of Rome with all their Mainteiners that is the much greater part of their Writers are Guilty of Schisme Here he should have answered Punctually to the Proposition or Assumtion either by denying granting or distinguishing but for all his calling for a Rigorous Demonstrative way he liketh it not because he cannot make such impertinent extravagant excursions as he useth to doe which are the onely help he hath at a dead lift All the Answer he giveth is this He the Bishop is accused of a Contradiction and Nonsense and to cleare himself he telles us he will now lay aside the one part of the Contradiction and endeavour to make good sense of the other To what Proposition to what â—erme doth he apply this answer I see no Contradiction I see no Nonsense in my discourse nor any body living but himself I said no such thing as he pretendeth What doth the man meane by these waves of brainlesse butterd fish by these heterogeneous incoherent Fopperies and Chimaeraes which have no existence but in his own pate If he meane to answer let him doe it clearly like a Schollar since I have found this way to tye him to his matter and restraine his torrent of words I shall put it in practice oftner Yet if I meet with any such thing as is substantiall among his vapouring expressions which hath but the least resemblance of an answer though it be not reduced into Forme I will gleane it out and examine the weight of it Such is this which followeth Was it for this Opinion of the Pope above the Councell c. How were they guilty of Schisme for this unlesse they had denyed you Communion for holding the Contrary or prest upon you an unconscientious approbation of it which you know they did not Foole not your Readers my Lord It was not for this Tenet which you impute to the Court of Rome but for that of the Popes Headship or Spirituall Iurisdiction over all Gods Church held
or humane Law and refuse to contend with us when we prove them to be Vsurpations to what end doth he interest himself and break other mens heads with the clattering noise of his Sabots SECT X. An Answer to their Objections THeir first Objection was that we had seperated ourselves from the Communion of the Catholick Church I answered that we hold Communion with thrice so many Catholick Christians as they doe that is the Eastern Southern and Northern Christians besides Protestants He interpreteth these Christians with whom we hold Communion to be numâ—erlesse Multitudes of Manichees Gâ—osticks Carpocratians Arrians Nestorians Eutichians c. Adding that he protesteth most faithfully he doth not think that I have any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Reader learn how to value his faithfull Protestations hereafter I shew that we all detest those damned Heresies and complaine of his Partiality and want of Ingenuity to abuse the Reader with such lying suggestions which he himself knoweth to be most false and challenge him to shew that any of us are guilty of any of these Heresies now see what he produceth to free himself from such an horrid Calumny First he saith that the Bishops taxe is evidently this to shew some solid reasons why he admits some of these and rejects others This is not the purging of his old Calumny but the twisting of a new Calumny to it Labhominate and Anathematise them all and he will have a reasoÌ„ of me why I admit some of them and reject others Well done brave disputant Secondly he urgeth Suppose he could not charge the Church of England or any of these otâ—er Churches with any of these Heresies are there no other Hereâ—sies in the world but thesâ— old ones Or is it impossible that a new Heresy should arise There are other Heresies in the world and it is possible that a new Heresy my arise but what doth that concern the Church of England unlesse he thinke that there is no Heresy in the world nor is possible to be but the Church of England must be guilty if it Worser and Worser He proceedeth that he accused not the Church of England or the Bishop for holding those materiall points but that having no determinate certein Rule of Faith they had no grounds to reject any from their Communion who hold some common points of Christianity with them It is well habemus câ—nfiâ—entem reum Mr. Serjeant retracts his Charge The Church of England and the Bishop are once declared innocent of those old Heresies which he made a Muster of to no purpose To let him see that I say nothing new and how he thrasheth his own Friends blind fold Peter Lombard Thomas a Iesu Cardinall Tolet and many others do make the Question about the procession of the Holy Ghost to be Verball onely without Reality and that the Grecian expressions of Spiritus Filii The Spirit of the Sonne and per Filium by the Sonne doe signify as much as our Filioque and from the Son And of the Nestorians Onuphrius giveth this Iudgement These Nestorians doe seem to me to have reteined the name of Nestorius the Heretick rather then his errours for I find nothing in them that savoureth of that Sect. And for the supposed Eutychians Thomas a Iesu giveth us ample Testimony That the suspicion did grow upon a double mistake They were suspected of Eutychianisme because they reteined not the Councell of Chalcedon and they received not the Councell of Chalcedon because they suspected it of Nestorianisme but yet they accurse Eutyches for an Heretick and so did the Councell of Chalcedon Anathematise Nestorius The same is asserted by Brerewood out of the Confessions of the Iacobites Nestorians Armenians Cophites and Abyssines To his Objection I answer First that though we had no such certein Rule of Faith yet it was not presently necessary that we must tumble headlong into such abhominable errours as many of these Hereticks held which the Discreeter Heathen did detest Secondly we have a certain Rule of Faith the Apostles Creed dilated in the Scriptures or the Scriptures contracted into the Apostles Creed and for that ugly Fardle of Heresies which he mentioneth we can shew that they are all diametrally opposite to the Apostles Creed as it is explained in the foure first Generall Councells Reader have a care to presere Epicteâ—us his Iewell Remember to distrust such faithfull or rather feigned Protestations He argueth All those Hereticks had the Same Rule or Grounds of their Faith that Protestants have namely the Holy Scripture therefore they are all of the Protestant Communion In good time All those Hereticks had the same Rule or grounds of their Faith that Roman Catholicks have namely the Holy Scriptures therefore they are of the Roman Catholick Communion If he except that the bare Letter of the Scriptures is not the Ground or Rule of Faith to Roman Catholicks but the Scripture interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and Tradition of the Church the Church of England saith the very same for it self So if this be the source of all errour to abandon the Tradition of the Church we are far enough from the source of all errour This is the onely difference in this particular betweene me and Mr. Serjeant what he attributeth to the Tradition of immediate Forefathers I ascribe to the perpetuall and Vniversall Tradition of the Catholick Church Who would believe that this man himself had deserted the Tradition of his Immediate Forefathers That which he addeth the Traditioâ— of Immediate Forefathers is the onely Ground of Faiths certainty and the Denying of it more Pestilentiall then the Denying of the Godhead of Christ or the asserting the worst of those errours which any of those old Hereticks held as there are two Gods a Good God and an Evill God is most false and Dangerous to tumble into a certain Crime for feare of an uncertein What he addeth concerning Sects new sprung up in England and Luther and Carolostadius concerneth not us nor the present Controversy I said that some few Eastern Christians were called Nestorians and some others by reasoÌ„ of some unusuall expressioÌ„s suspected of Eâ—tichianisme but most wrongfully and in our Name and in the name of all those Churches which hold Communion with us I accursed all the Errours of those Hereticks Notwithstanding all this he saith that nothing is more right then to call them so that what I say here is contrary to the publick and best intelligence we have from those remote Countries that I have a mind to cling in very Brotherly aud very lovingly with the Nestorians aud Eutychians though I say I will not that I stroake those errours which I accurse with a gentle hand stiling them but unusuall expressions First for so much as concerneth my self I have renounced those errours I have accursed them if yet he will not crâ—dit me there is nothing left for me to doe but to appeale to God
the searcher of all hearts that what I say is true and his accusations are groundlesse Calumnies But as to the merit of the cause he addeth that these unusuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures Thus he saith but what Authours what Authority doth he produce that any of these Churches are guilty of any such expressions None at all because for all his good intelligence he hath none to produce nor ever will be able to produce any and so his good intelligence must end in smoke and stinke as his most faithfull protestation did before I will conclude this point to his shame with the Doctrin of the English Church Art 2. That the two Natures Divine and Humane are perfectly and inseperably conjoined in the Vnity of the person of Christ. Doth this agree with his counterfeit expressions Christ hath two distinct persons no distnct natures When I used this expression the best is we are either wheat or chaffe of the Lords Floore but their tongues must not winnow us these words the best is had no such immediate Relation unto the words immediatly following we are either wheat or Chaffe but to the last words their tongues must not winnow us making this the complete sense we are either wheat or chaffe but the best is whether we be wheat or chaffe their tongues must not winnow us What poore boyish pickquering is this In my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon occasionally I shewed the Agreement of the Greek Churches with the Church of England in the greatest Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome out of Cyrill late Patriarch of Constantinople which he taketh no notice of but in requitall urgeth a passage out of Mr. Rosse in his booke called a View of all Religions It is an unequall match between Mr. Rosse a private Stranger and the Patriarch of Constantinople in a cause concerning his own Church I meddle not with Mr. Rosse but leave him to abound in his own sense I know not whether he be truly cited or not but with Mr. Serjeant I shall be bold to tell him that if he speaketh seriously and bona fide he is mistaken wholy Neither doe the Greekes place much of their Devotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and painted Images Heare Cyrill the Patriarch we give leave to him that will to have the Images of Christ and of the Saints but we disallow the Adoration and worship of them as prohibited by the Holy Ghost in Holy Scripture And another They give great honour to the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ but they neither adore her nor implore her aide And for the Intercession prayers help and Merits of the Saints taking the word Merit in the sense of the Primitive Church that is not for Desert but for Acquisition I know no Difference about them among those men who understand themselves but onely about the last words which they invocate in their Temples rather then Churches A Comprecation both the GreciaÌ„s and we do allow an ultimate invocatioÌ„ both the Grecians and we detest so do the Church of Rome in their Doctrine but they vary from it in their practise It followeth They place IustificatioÌ„ not in Faith but in workes Most Falsly Heare Hieremy the Patriarch We must doe good workes but not confide in them And Cyrill his Successour VVe believe that man is justified by Faith not VVorkes Before we can determine for whom those Eastern Southern and Northern Christians are in the Question concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse it is necessary to know what the right state of this Controversy is I have challenged them to goe one step further into it then I do and they dare not or rather they cannot without Blasphemy The next instance concerning Purgatory is so grosse and notorions a mistake that it were a great shame to confute it They believe that the soules of the Dead are bettered by the prayers of the living Which way are they bettered That the soules of damned are released or eased thereby the Modern Greeks deny and so do we That there are any soules in Purgatory to be helped they deny and so do we That they may be helped to the Consummation of their Blessednesse and to a speedier Vnion with their Bodies by the resurrection thereof they do not deny no more do we We pray dayly Thy Kingdome come and Come Lord Iesus come quickly and that we with this our Brother and all other departed in the Faith may have our perfect Consummation and blesse both in body and Soule They hate Ecclesiasticall Tiranny and lying supposititious Traditions so do we but if they be for the Authority of the Church and for genuine Apostolicall Traditions Gods blessing on their hearts so are we Lastly the Grecians know no feast of Corpus Christi nor carry the Sacrament up and down nor elevate it to be adored They adore Christ in the use of the Sacrament so do we They do not adore the Sacrament no more do we Yet from hence he inferreth that there is not a point of Faith wherein they dissent from the Church of Rome except that one of the Popes Supremacy It is well they will acknowledge that Yet the Grecians agree with us and differ from them in his two Rules or Bonds of Vnity In the Rule of discipline the Grecians and we have the same Government of Bishops under Patriarchs and Primates Secondly in the Rule of Faith the Grecians and we have both the same Canonicall bookes of Scripture both reject their Apocryphall Additions from the Genuine Canon They and we have both the same Apostolicall Creed both reject the new Additions of Pius the fourth In summe they and wee doe both deny their Transubstantiation their Purgatory their Iustification by workes in sensu forensi their doctrine of Merits and Supererogation their Septenary number of the Sacraments their Image worship their Pardons their private Masses their half-Communion And to be briefe the Grecians doe renounce and reject all those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out of the Church of England As the Popes Soveraignty over the Catholick Church by divine Right as Nilus saith It is intollerable that the Roman Bishop will not be subject to the Canons of the Fathers since he had his Dignity from the Fathers Secondly his Legislative power as Peter Stewart Vice-chanceller of Ingolstad witnesseth that the Grecians object it as an errour to the Latines that they make the Popes Commandements to be their Canons and Lawes Thirdly his Iudiciary power equalling the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Rome or rather preferring him Lastly his dispensative power accusing his Pardons and Dispensations as things that open a gaâ—e to all Kind of Villany I am glad that Nilus is in his good grace to be stiled by him one of the gravest Bishops and Authors of that party for one moderate expression wherein he saith no more then we say
had no coactive power to compell any man against his Will The Vttermost they could doe was to separate him from their Communion and to leave him to the Comming or Iudgement of Christ. Let him be Anathema mar an atha The true Controversy then is this Whether the Bishop of Rome by his Legates have Coactive power in the exteriour Court to Convocate Synods of English Subjects in England when he will where he will whom he will without their Consents and without the leave of the Soveraign Prince or King of England The Case being thus stated determineth it self Where should the Pope appoint a place of meeting in England without the Leave of the King of England Wee see by often experience that if the Pope have a desire to summon a Councell in Italy within the Dominions of another Soveraign Prince or Republick although they be of his own Communion he must First aske leave and obtein leave before he can tell how to doe it Or how should he pretend to any Coactive power in England without the Kings grant or leave where the power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King Thus for point of right Now for matter of Fact First I doe utterly deny that any Bishop of Rome by his own Authority did Convocate any Synod in the Brittish Island during the First eleven hundred yeares Or preside in any by his Legates Or confirm them by his Authority If he be no table to produce so much as one instance to the Contrary he may cry guilty to the Vsurpation where of he is accused and hold his peace forever Secondly I doe confesse that after eleven hundred yeares The Bishops of Rome taking advantage of our civill combustions and prostituting the reputation of the Apostolicall See to their temporall ends did by the leave of our Kings not otherwise sometimes call Synods in England and preside in them The first Synod held in England by any of the Popes Legats was at London in the yeare 1125. by Ioannes Cremensis Which moved England into no smal indignation to see a thing till then unheard of in the Kingdome of England A Priest sitting president upon an high throne above Arch Bishops Bishops bats c. But remember my third ground or Consideration of the difference betwen affirmative and negative Presidents All which this proveth is that the King did give leave or connive at that time But it doth not prove it cannot prove a right to doe the same at other times when the King contradicteth it Further wee ought to take notice that there is a greate deale of difference between an Ordinary Synod and an English Convocation Although in truth our Convocations be Synods So called from one word in the Kings writ to Summon them Convocari facias All the Clergy of the Realm were not present at an ordinary Synod but all the whole Clergy of the Kingdome were present at a Convocation either in their Persons or by their Proctors sufficiently authorised Secondly the absent Clergy had no such Obligation to the Acts of a Papall Synod as they had to the Acts of a royall Convocation sub Hypotheca bonorum omnium under the Caution or Pledge of all their Goods and Estates Lastly to drive the naile home and to demonstrate clearly the Grossenesse of this Papall usurpation it remaineth onely to shew that by the Ancient Lawes of England the calling of Convocations or Synods belonged properly to the King not to the Bishop of Rome or his Legates And first by reason By the Lawes of England more ancient then the Popes intrusion no Roman Legat could enter into the Kingdome withont the Kings leave nor continue in it longer then he had his License as wee shall see hereafter and therefore they could not convocate any Synods nor doe any Synodicall Act without the Kings leave Secondly by Records of the English Convocation itself that the Convocations of the Clergy of the Realm of England are alwayes have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ Anno 1532. Thirdly by the Form of the Writt which hath ever been the same in all succeding Ages constantly directed from the King to the English Arch Bishops for their distinct Provinces The very Form speakes it English sufficiently For certain difficult and urgent Businesses concerning the defence and security of the English Church and the peace tranquility publik good and defence of our Kingdome and Subjects Wee command and require you by that Allegiance and Love which you owe â—o us that you cause to be convocated with convenient speed in due manner all and singular Bishops of your Province Deanes and Priors of Cathedrall Churches c. And the whole Clergy of your diocesse and Province to meet before you c. Another Writ did alwayes issue from the King for the dissolution Wee command you that you dissolve or cause to be dissolved this present Convocation this very day in due manner without any delay c. Lastly by the concurring Testimonyes of all our Historiographers That all the space of time of eleven hundred yeares wherein the Popes did neither call Councells nor Preside in them nor Confirm them and after unto the very Reformation Our Kings did both call Councells and Preside in them and Confirm them and own their Lawes as I have shewed him by the Lawes of Ercombert Ina Withred Alfred Edwerd Athelstan Edmund Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor in my Vindication And particularly that Theodore Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Presided in a Councell in the Presence of Iohn the Popes Legate That King Edward Assembled a Synod and Confirmed the Acts of it as Decreâ—um Regis The Kings decree That King Withred called a Councell at Becancelde and Presided in it and that the decrees of the Councell issued in his name and by his Authority Firmiter decernimus c. in my Answer to the Bishop of Chalcedon All this he pretendeth to have answered but it is with deep silence If he desire more Presidents and more witnesses he may have a cloud of Authors upon holding up his Finger to prove undeniably that King Henry did not innovate at all in challenging to himself the right to Convocate the Clergy and dissolve them and confirm their Acts with in his own Dominions but followed the steps of his Roâ—al Predecessors in all Ages from the first planting of religion untill his own dayes And not onely of his own Ancestors but his Neighbours The President of Charles the great is very conspicuous To omit all my former Allegations in this behalf In the French Synod I Charlemain Duke and Prince of the Frankes by the Advise of the Servants of God and my Princes have congregated the Bishops wich are in my Kingdome with the Priests to a Synod for the feare of Christ to Counsaile me how the Law of God and Ecclesiasticall Religion may be recovered which in the Dayes of forepassed Princes is dissipated and fallen
them cited at large by King Iames in his Apology for the Oath of A legiance But these Oaths land Homages and Regal Investitures as thâ—y were a Bond of Peace and Vnity between the King and his Clergy so they were a great Eyesore to the Bishops of Rome because they crossed their maine Designe to make them selves the onely Liege Lords of the Ecclesiasticks As appeareth by that severe Check which Adrian the fourth gave Frederick the first for Requiring Homage and Fealty of Bishops who are Gods and for holding their sacred hands in his hands It staied not here That Homage and Oath of Fidelity which Gregory the seventh and Calixtus did rob the King of their immediate Successour Paschalis the second did assume to himself as wee find by the unanimous consent of all Historiographers and by the Canon of Paschalis himself recorded by Gregory the ninth Significasli c. Thou signifiedst that Kings and the Peers of the Kingdome were moved with Admiration because the Pall was offered to Thee by our Apocrisiaries upon Condition to take that Oath which they brought Thee written from us c. The Admiration sheweth the novelty of it He confesseth there that the Oath was not established by the Canon of any councell but by Papall Authority and â—ustifieth it For feare of further evill That is Apostaring from the ObedieÌ„ce due to the Apostolick See The very Title doth assure us that it was an Oath of Fidelity and Obedience What manner of assurance can Soveraign Princes promise themselves of those Subjects who have sworn Allegiance and Obedience to a forrein Prince This Form at First was modest and moderate bounding the Obedience of Arch-Bishops by the Rules of the holy Fathers as wee find in the old Roman Pontificall but it was quickly changed from Regulas Sanctorum Patrum to Regalia Sancti Petri as wee find in the new Pontificall The Change in Letters was not great but in the Sense abhominable Semel falsus semper praesumitur falsus He who is apprehended in palpable forgery is alwayes deservedly suspected of forgery With what Face can Mr. Serjeant tell us that where the Method of immediate Tradition hath place it is impossible for encroachments to gaine Admittance Where were see such Hocus Pocus tricks plaid before our eyes in their Pontificall Bellarmine would perswade us that in St. Gregory the firsts time there was such an Oath of Obedience fully made to the Bishop of Rome But he doth either abuse him self or seeketh grossely to abuse us First the Oath mentioned in Saint Gregory was not an Oath of Obedience or allegiance but promissio cujusdam Episcopi haeresim suam anathematiz aniâ—s A promise of a Certeine Bishop anathematizing his haeresy or an Oath of abjuration Secondly the Oath mentioned by Saint Gregory was not imposed by his authority but taken freely by the converted Bishop to satisfie the world and to take away all suspicion of Hypocrisy ne non pura mentâ— seu simulate reversus existimer dictated to his owne Notary by the advise of his Clergy Notario meo cum consensu presbyterorâ—m Diaconorum atque Clericorum scribendum dictavi It was no Common Case of all Bishops neither did it comprehend any such obligation to mainteine the praetended royallties of S. Peter And as they extended the matter of their Oath so they did the Subject about an hundred yeares after in the time of Gregory the niuth enlarging it from Arch-Bishops to all Prelates Bishops Abbats Priors And now what remaines but to cry up the Authority of the Canons above all Imperiall Lawes Cedant Arma Togae concedat Laurea Linguae As Bellarmine doth who denyeth the superiority of Princes above Clergymen Principes Seculares respectu Clericorum non sunt Principes Princes are no Princes of Clerkes c. Politicall lawes have no coactive obligation over Clerkes but onely directive The Civill lawes of Emperours must give place to the Canons of Popes What new Monster is this To receive Protection from the Lawes of Princes aud to acknowledge no Subjection to the Lawes of Princes If Princes should put Church men out of their ProtectioÌ„ as Bellarmine exempts them from all Coactive Obligation to the Lawes of Princes They would quickly find their Errour It is an honour to Princes to preserve to Church men their old Immunities but is it a Shame to Churchmen like Swine to eat the Fruit aud never looke up to the Tree from whence it falleth Wee have viewed the spoile Committed evidently when and by whom He whose office it was to praeserve all others from spoile could not preserve himself It is a Rule in Law Ame omnia Spoliaâ—us restiâ—ui debet Before all other things he that is spoiled ought to be restored to his Right And our old English Lawes are Diametrally opposite to these new Papall Vsurpations in all the parts of them First though the Kings and Kingdome of England were alwayes carefull to preserve the Privileges of Holy Church In all our Great Charters that was the first thing was taken Care for yet not as due by Divine Law and much lesse by the Lawes of the Pope which they never regarded but as Graces aud Privileges granted by the Kings of England aud therefore they excluded from benefit of Clergy such sort of delinquents as they thought fit as Proditores Traitours against the Person of the King Insidiatores viarum such as lay in wait to doe mischief upon the High-wayes Depopulatores agrorum such as depopulated the Land And the most severe Lawes that ever they made are the Statutes of Premunire and Provisors against Church-men for siding with the Bishop of Rome in his Vsurpations even to the forfeiture of their Goods and Lands their Losse of their Liberty and the putting them out of the Kings Protection Secondly our Lawes doe acknowledge every where that Homage and allegiance is alwayes due to the King from all Clergymen what soever Edward the first injoined all the Prelates upon their faith or Allegiance which they ought him They know no Fidelity or allegiance which is due to the Pope from any English man either Clergy man or Lay man but the just contrary that they are bound by their allegiance to fight for the King against the Pope for the redresse of these and such like Vsurpations In the fourteenth Yeare of Richard the second all the Spirituall Lords did answer unanimously That if any Bishop of England were excommunicated by the Pope for having executed the sentences and commandements of the King The same is against the King and his Crown And they will and ought to be with the King in these Cases lawfully and in all other Cases touching his Crown and his Regality as they be bound in their Allegiance Our Lawes know no Oath of Allegiance or Fealty due to any person but the King they make the King to be Advowee Paramont Supreme Lord and Patron Guardian Protector and Champion of thâ—
no such power in the Pope to absolve Subjects from their allegiance in our Law With us Clergymen did ever pay Subsidies and taxes as well as lay men This is one Liberty which England hath not to admit of the Popes Lawes unlesse they like them A second Liberty of England is to reject the Popes Lawes in plaine termes The Pope made a Law for the Legitimation of Children borne afore Matrimony as well as those borne in Matrimony The Bishops moved the Lords in Parliament that they would give their consent to the Common Order of the Church But all the Earles and Barons answered with one voice that they would not change the Lawes of the Realm which hitherto had been used and approved The Popes legislation could not make a Law in England without the concurrence of the three Orders of the Kingdome and they liked their own old Lawes better then the Popes new Law A Third Liberty of England is to give a legislative Interpretation to the Popes Lawes which the Pope never intended The Bishop of Rome by a constitution made at the Councell of Lions excluded Bigamists men twice Married from the Privilege of Clergy that is that should Marry the second time de futuro But the Parliament made an Act that the constitution should be understood on this wise that whether they were Bigamists before the constitution or after they should not be delivered to the Prelates but Iustice should be executed upon them as upon other Lay people Ejus est Legem Interpretari cujus est condere They that can give a Law a new sense may abrogate it if they please A fourth Liberty of England is to call the Popes Lawes Vsurpations Encroachments Mischiefs contrary to and destructive of the Municipall Lawes of the Realme derogatory to the Kings Regality And to punish such of their Subjects as should pursue them and obey them with Imprisonment with Confiscation of their Goods and Lands with outlawing them and putting them out of the Kings Protection Witnesse all those noble Lawes of Provisors and Premunire Which we may truely call the Palladium of England which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast Gulfe of the Roman Court made by Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second and Henry the fourth All those Collations and Reservations and Provisions and Privileges and Sentences which are condemned in those Statutes were all grounded upon the Popesâ—Lawes and Bulls and Decrees which our Ancestors entertained as they deserved Othobon the Popes Legate in England by the Command of Vrban the fifth made a Constitution for the endowment of Vicars in Appropriations but it prevailed not whereas our Kings by two Acts of Parliament did easily effect it No Ecclesiastical Act is impossible to them who have a Legislative power but many Ecclesiasticall Acts were beyond the Sphere of the Popes Activity in England The King could make a spirituall Corporation but the Pope could not The King could exempt from the Iurisdiction of the Ordinary but the Pope could not The King could Convert Seculars into Regulars but the Pope could not The King could grant the Privilege of the Cistercians but the Pope could not The King could Appropriate Churches but the Pope could not Our Lawes never acknowledged the Popes plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power which was the ground of his legislation Euphemius objected to Gelasius that the Bishops of Rome alone could not condemne Acatius ab uno non potuisset damnari Gelasius answered that he was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon and that his Predecessor was but the Executor of an old Law and not the Author of a new This was all the ancient Bishops of Rome did challenge to be Executors of Ecclesiasticall Lawes and not single Law makers I acknowledge that in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania he attributeth much to the Bishops of Rome wich a Councell but it is not in making new Lawes or Canons but in executing old as in the case of Athanasius and Chrysostome The Privileges of the Abby of Saint Austin in EnglaÌ„d granted by the Popes were condemned as null or of no validity because they were not ratified by the King and approved by the Peers William the Conquerer would not suffer any man within his Dominions to receive the Pope for Apostolicall Bishop but by his command nor to receive his letters by any meanes â—nlesse they were first shewed to him It is â—ikely this was in a time of Schisme when there were more Popes then one but is sheweth how the King did interest himself in the affaires of the Papacy that it should have no further influence upon his subjects then he thought fit He who would not suffer any man to receive the Popes letters without his leave would much less suffer them to receive the Popes lawes without leave And in his prescript to Remigius Bishop of Lincolneâ— know ye all Earles and Viscounts that I â—ave judged that the Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall lawes which have bene of force untill my time in the Kingdome of England being not well constituted according to the praecepts of the holy Canons should be amended in the common assembly and with the Counsaile of my Arch-Bishops and the rest of the Bishops and Abbats and all the Princes of my Kingdome He needed not the helpe of any forreine Legislation for amending Ecclesiasticall Canons and the externall regiment of the Church Now let us see whether the Libertyes of France be the same with our English Privileges The second Liberty is this The Spirituall Authority and power of the Pope is not absolute in Franee if it be not absolute then it is not singly Legislative but limited and restreined by the Canons and ancient Councells of the Church If it be limâ—ted by Ancient Canons then it hath no power to abrogate Ancient Canons by new Canons Their ancient Canons are their Ecclesiasticall Lawes as well as ours and those must be received in that Kingdome They may be excellent Advisers without reception but they are no Lawes without publick reception Canons are no Canons either in England or in France further then they are received The third Liberty is No Command whatsoever of the Pope Papall decrees are his chief Commands can free the French Clergy from their Obligation to obey the Commands of their Soveraign But if Papall power could abrogate the ancient Lawes of France it did free their Clergy from their Obedience to their Soveraign Prince The sixteenth Liberty is The Courts of Parliament have power to declare null and voide the Popes Bulls wheÌ„ they are found contrary to the Liberties of the French Church or the Prerogative Royall The twentieth Liberty The Pope cannot exempt any Church Monastery or Ecclesiasticall Body from the jurisdiction of their Ordinary nor erect Bishopricks into Arch Bishopricks nor unite them nor divided them without the Kings license England and France as touching their Liberties walk hand in hand To conclude the Popes
Clarendon by the Popes Mandate they had interdicted the Lands of Earl Hugh and had published an Excommunication without the Kings License which the Pope had given out against him All these Lawes continued still in force and were never repealed in England neither before Henry the eighth began the reformation nor since by Queen Mary but have ever continued iu full force untill this day Lastly for Legates and Legantine courts there could be no Appeale in Eugland to any Legate or Nuncio without the Kings leave but all Appeales must be from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King as we see expresly by the statute of Assise of Clarendon formerly cited The Kings of England did ever deem it to be an unquestionable right of the Crown as Eadmerus testifieth to suffer none to excercise the Office of a Legate in England if the King him self did not Desire it of the Pope upon some great quarrell that could not be so well Determined by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops Which Privilege was consented unto by Pope Calixius By the Lawes of England if a Legate was admitted of Courtesy he was to take his Oath to doe nothing Derogatory to the King and his Crown Henry the sixth by the counsaile of Humphry Duke of Gloster the Protector protested against Pope Martin and his Legate that they would not admit him contrary to the Lawes and Libertyes of the Realm and dissented from whatsoever he did And when the Pope had recalled Cardinall Pooles Commission of Legate for England and was sending another Legate into England Queen Mary being very tender of her Kinsmans Honour for all her good affection to Rome was yet mindfull of this point of old English Law to cause all the Seaports to be stopped and all Letters Briefs and Bulls from Rome to be intercepted and brought to her Shee knew this was an old English not a new protestant Privilege Neither would she ever admit the new Legate to appeare as Legate in her presence Now let us see how these old English Customes doe agree with the French Liberties The Pope cannot send a Legate a latere into France with power to Reform Iudge Collate dispense except it be upon the desire or with the Approbation of the most Christian King Neither can the Legate execute his Charge untill he hath promised the King under his Oath upon his holy Orders to make no longer use of the Legantine power in the Kings Dominions then it pleaseth him That he shall attempt nothing Contrary to the Liberties of the Gallicane Church And it is lawful to Appeale from the Pope to a future Councell Another Liberty is The Commissions and Bulls of Popes are to be viewed by the Court of Parliament and registred and published with such Cautiōs as that Court shall Iudge expedient A third Liberty is Papall Bulls Sentences Excommunications and the like are not to be executed in France without the Kings command or Permission Lastly neither the King nor his Realm nor his Officers can be Excommunicated nor Interdicted by the Pope And as England and France so all the seventeen Provinces did enjoy the same Privileges as appeareth by the Placaet of the Councell of Brabant dated at Bruxelles May 12 An. 1653. Wherein they declare that it was notoriously true that the subjects of those Provinces of what State or Condition soever that is the Clergy as well as the Laity cannot be cited or convented out of the Land no not before the Court of Rome it self And that the Censures Excommunications c of that Court might not be published or put in execution without the Kings Approbation It seemeth that if the Pope had any judiciary power of old he must seek it nearer Home People had no mind to goe over the Alpes to seek for Justice And that Ordinance of Sainct Cyprian had place every where among our Ancestours Seing it is decreed by all and it is equall and just that every mans cause be heard there where the Crime was committed and a Portion of the Flock is assigned to every Pastor which he may rule and govern and must render an account of his Actions to the Lord It behoveth those whom wee are over not to run up and down nor to knock Bishops who agree well one◠against another by their Cunning and deceitfull Rashnesse but to plead their Cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Vnlesse the Authority of the African Bishops who have Iudged them already seem lesse to a few desperate and lost persons c. To say S. Cyprian meant not to condemne appeales but onely the bringing Causes out of Africk to Rome in the first Instance is a shift as desperate as that of those Fugitives For St. Cyprian telleth us plainly that the cause was already Iudged and sentence given in Africk The first Instance was past and this Canon was made against Appeales out of Africa to Rome Sect I. Cap VIII So from his Iudiciary power I come to Papal dispensations the last of the grosser Vsurpations of the Bishops of Rome Where I have a large Field offered me to expatiate in if I held it so pertinēt to the present Controversy The Pharisees did never dilate their Philacteries so much as the Roman Courtiers did their dispensative power The Pope dispenseth with Oathes with Vowes with Lawes he looseth from Sinnes from Censures from Punishments Is not this a strange Key which can unlock both sinnes and censures and Punishments and Lawes and Oaths and Vowes where there are so many and so different wards It is two to one that it proveth not a right Key but a Picklock Their doctrin of Dispensations was foule enough especially in such cases as concern the Law of God or Nature as Oaths Vowes Leagues Marriages Allegiance For either they make the dispensation to be onely Declarative and then the Purchaser is meerly Cheated who payes his money for nothing Or else they make all Contracts Leagues promises to be but Conditionall If the Pope approve them which destroyeth all mutuall trust and humane Society Or thirdly they make the Popes Dispensations to be a taking away of the matter of the Vow or Oath that is the Promise as if the Papall power could recall that which is past or make that to be undone to day which was done yesterday or that not to be promised which was promised Or lastly they doe dispense with the Law of God and Nature as they doe indeed what soever they pretend to the Contrary or all this kind of dispensations signify nothing But the Practise of Dispensations was much more foule Witnesse their Penitentiary Taxe wherein a man might see the Price of his Sin before hand Their common Nundination of Pardons Their absolving Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance Their loosing of Princes from their solemne Leagues of Married people from the Bonds of
as he calleth them do not baffle him and trip up his heeles I pleaded that Roman Catholicks did make the first separation He answers that this Plea doth equally acquit any Villain in the World who insists in the steps of his Forefather Villains Would no expression lower then this of Villains serve his turâ—e Who can help it If those Forefathers whom he intimates were Villains or any thing like Villains they were his Forefathers twenty times more then ours We inherit but one point in difference from them but he twenty The denomination ought to be from the greater part If any of them were deemed more propitious to us then the rest it was Henry the eighth or Archbishop Cranmer For both these we have their own confession that they were theirs First for Henry the eight We had a King who by his Lawes abolished the Authority of the Pope although in all other things he would follow the faith of his Ancestours And for Archbishop Cranmer heare another of them Cranmer the unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earle of Hartfords right hand and chiefe Assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecuter of the six Articles But to deale clearly with you there is not the same reason to imitate a notorious knave in his confessed knavery and to follow one who hath not onely a reasonable and just cause of contending but also the reputation of an honest man even in the judgement of his adverse party in all other things except onely therein wherein he is adverse to them Such were all the Actors in this cause by their Confession If we acknowledged that they who cast out Papall Vsurpations were Schismaticks for so doing he said something but we justify their Act as pious and virtuous and so his Comparison hath never a leg to run on I pleaded that it was a violent presumption of their Guilt and our Innocence when their best Friends and best able to Iudge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for theÌ„ who in all other things were great Zelots of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poore ProtestaÌ„ts with fire and fagot yet coÌ„demne theÌ„ and justify this seperarioÌ„ He minceth what I say according to his use and then excepteth The word best might have been left out They ever were accounted better Friends who remained in their former faith and the other Bishops looked upon as Schismaticks by the Obedient party Yet the Bishop of Chalcedon doubted not to call them the best of Bishops He should do well to tell us for his credits sake who those other Bishops were who looked upon these as Schismaticks Such is his ignorance in the State of these times that he dreameth of two parties an Obedient Party and a Rebellious Party whereas there were no Parties but all went one way There was not a Bishop nor an Abbot of Note in the Kingdome who did not vote the Kings Supremacy Four and twenty Bishops and five and twenty Abbots personally at one time There was not a Bishop nor any person of note in the Kingdome who did not take the Oath of the Kings Supremacy except Bishop Fisher and S. Thomas Moore who were imprisoned for treason either true or pretended before that Act was made for opposing the Succession of the Crown If he will not trust me let him trust the Veredict of our Vniversities A length we all agreed unanimously in this Sentencâ— and were of one accord that the Roman Bishop hath no greater Iurisdiction given him by God in holy Scripture in this Kingdome of England then any other Forrain Bishop The same Sentence was given by our Convocations or Synods The same Sentence was given by our Parliaments with the same concord and Vnanimity Nemine Dissentiente We had no parties but one and all Let him listen to his Friend Bishop Gardiner No Forrain Bishop hath any Authority among us all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most stedfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome And Ireland was unanimoâ—s herein with England All the great Families as well of the Irish as of the English did acknowledge by their Indentures to S. Anthony St. Leger then chiefe Governour of Ireland the Kings Supremacy and utterly renounce the Iurisdiction of the Pope Yet it was not the meaning of our Ancestours then and though some of them had been so minded it is not our meaning now to meddle with the power of the Keys or abridge the Bishop of Rome of any Iurisdiction purely spirituall or any Legacy which was left him by Christ or his Apostles but onely to cast out his usurped Coactive power in the exteriour Court without the leave of the Soveraign Prince which Christ and his Apostles did never exercise or dispose of or meddle with and to vindicate to our Kings the Politicall or externall Regiment of the Church by themselves and by their Bishops and other fit delegates as a Right due to all Christian Princes by the Law of God and nature But he attributeth all this to the Feare of the Clergy and the people and the Kings violent Cruelty and for proofe of what he saith citeth half a passage out of Doctor Hammond but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong Dr. Hammond speaketh onely of the first preparatory act which occasioned them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodicall way he applieth it to the subsequent act of Renunciation after debate Dr. Hammond said onely it is easy to be believed Mr. Serjeant maketh it a just Presumption or confest Evidence Dr. Hammond speaketh of no feare but the feare of the law the law of Premunire an ancient law made many ages before Henry the eighth was borne the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome but he misapplieth it wholy to the feare of he Kings violent Cruelty Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammonds Sense expressed clearly by himself that there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the feare being the Occasion of their debates but the reasons or Arguments offered in debate the causes as in all Charity we are to Iudge of their decision He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously If he did he could have told his Reader that this answer was taken away by me before it was made by him For two whole Kingdomes the Vniversities the Convocations the Parliaments to betray their Consciences to renounce an Article which they esteem necessary to salvation onely for the feare of a Premunire or the losse of their goods to forswear themselves to deny the Essence of their faith to turn Schismaticks as if they did all value their Goods more then their soules without so much as one to oppose it is a vain uncharitable
of Peaces Closet And yet he is as confident as Gawen the best Statute he could pick out you may be sure How doth he know that We all see he never read it nor knoweth whether it be a Statute or no. Then he telleth us there is not a Syllable in it concerning Spirituall Iurisdiction Well guessed by Instinct but for once his Instinct hath deceived him if Excommunication be any part of Spirituall Iurisdiction there is more then one Syllable of Spirituall Iurisdiction in it But concerning our English Statutes both ancient and new which concern the casting of Papall Authority out of the Kingdom I have given him a full satisfactory account formerly to which I refer him We have seen how carelesse he is in reading over Lawes before he answer them Now let us observe the same Oscitance or want of Ingenuity towards his Adversary that he may learn what he gets by his Falsifications Nempe hoc quod Veneri donatae a virgine puppae Reall falsifications retorted upon him instead of his feigned ones He answered that to limit an Authority implyes an admittance of it in cases to which the Limitation extends not I replyed that these ancient Lawes of England did not onely limit an Authority but deny it that is deny it in such and such cases mentioned in the Lawes deny it Coactively in the exteriour Court without the leave of the Soveraign Prince So the Lawes may differ the restraints may differ the leave may differ in degrees according to the difference of places notwithstanding this denyall That which he beateth at is this that we deny all Papall power whatsoever but other Churches do onely limit it I answer we doe not deny the Bishop of Rome all manner of power We deny him not the power of the Keys we deny him not any power purely Spirituall we deny him not his beginning of Vnity if he could he contended with it but we deny him all Coactive power in the Exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes without the Soveraigns leave If some Princes give more leave then others as finding it more expedient for their affaires we doe not envy it But he urgeth that I do not deny equivalent Lawes in France Spain Germany Italy I neither deny it nor affirm it or I affirm it onely in part Yes there are some such Lawes in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the Liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English Some such Lawes not so many much the same are no proofes of Equivalence or if he will call them Equivalent it is onely secundum quid not simpliciter respectively in some cases not vniversally in all cases But he hath another place which striketh home where I affirm that the likâ— lawes may be found in Germany Poland France Spaine Italy Sicily and if we will trust Padre Paolo the Papacy it self But did either I or Padre Paolo speak of those ancieÌ„t English lawes by me cited made to restraine the Vsurpations of the Bishops of Rome So he saith but it is a grosse Falsification I did neither speake of them in that place nor Padre Paolo but we both speake of another Law of a quite different nature from these that is the Law of Mortmain a Law meerly Politicall to restrain men from giving Lands to the Church without License Of this I said there are found like Lawes to it in Germany Poland France Spain Italy Sicily and Padre Paolo addeth in the Papacy it self What an Adversary have I to deale with who either understandeth not what the Law of Mortmain is or regardeth not how he falsifieth his Adversaries words But from these mistaken and mishapen premisses he draweth ten Conclusions every one of them driving me to a Contradiction or Absurdity at least The first second third and fourth are the same in effect or all comprehended in the first that it is opposite to the generall opinion of the whole world Catholicks Protestants Puritans Secondly that it is against the profession of the Protestants who extoll that happy time when England was freed from the yoke of Rome Thirdly that it contradicts our Reformation in the point of the Popes Supremacy there could be no Reformation of that which was not otherwise before and therefore Henry the eighth added something of his own to these ancient Lawes Fourthly he saith that Doctor Hammond acknowledgeth that Papall power was cast out of England in Henry the eights dayes And the sixth is that this Position is particularly opposite to the Common â—onsent of the Catholick Countries who all looked on Henry the eighth and the Church of England ever since as Schismaticall Doubtlesse he meaneth Roman Catholick Countries Was it not enough to say that it was Contrary to the Generall opinion of the whole world unlesse he added Protestants and Reformers and Doctor Hammond and Roman Catholicks as if they were none of the world Reader I undertooke to prove that HeÌ„ry the eighths Lawes against the Vsurpations of the Roman Bishop were no new Lawes but ancient Lawes of England I have done it by producing the ancient Lawes themselves five or six hundred yeares old and I am yet ready to shew further that they were no new Lawes then but the Fundamentall Lawes of England derived from the first founding of the British and English Churches as to the substance of them To all my premisses or particularities as he calleth them he hath been able to answer nothing but leaves them to the Canon and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about them but he utterly denyeth my Conclusion what an absurdity that is he is not ignorant But alas what doth the world know of the Municipall Lawes of England untill we instruct them better and what Opinion can Forreiners have of us but what they learn from him and his Fellowes We acknowledge with Doctor Hammond that Papall Vsurpations were cast out of England in Henry the eights time but we adde not by the Creation of new Lawes but by the vigorous execution of the ancient Lawes being first renewed and confirmed by himself We acknowledge that Henry the eighth did finally shake of the yoke of Rome which could not have been done if there had been nothing to have been shaken of or reformed but this doth not hinder but that his Predecessors did attempt to shake it of long before even at the first appearing of it yea and did actually shake it of for a time in a great part His fifth Objection is that according to me the Lawes made by Henry the eighth did no more then the former Lawes Where did I say so untill he is able to shew it me which I shall expect at the Greek Calends I shall score it up among his lesser Falsifications And for his inference which he makes that he never heard it pretended that they did shake of the Roman yoke in part or for a time therefore they did it not it sheweth but his ignorance in
Opinions of the Romanists and yet some of my Instances were in Cardinall Richlieus dayes and since very lately Adding that I contradict myself yet once more affirming that I hope those seditious doctrins at this day are almost buryed What Satisfaction doth this man owe to his Reader to conceale from him all the Presidents Lawes Sentences of Emperours Kings Common-wealths Vniversities and to present him nothing but such Fopperies as these I will not vouchsafe to spend any time about them but onely give the Reader an Ariadnes clew to guide him out of this Imaginary Maze I have shewed him what these seditious Opinions were where they were hatched and when namely in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths Reign And though some few of my Instances were after that time yet the maine body of them was much more ancient as in the Empire from Charles the great to Charles the fifth and in France from Carolus Calvus downward So I might truely say that the Instances cited by me were long before those disloyall Opinions were hatched and yet they are not so lately hatched but I hope they are almost buried at this day A man would have thought that I deserved thankes for my Charity not to be traduced But it is all one let the Reader judge who it is that trippeth up his own heeles When I said It was great Pity that he was not one of Christs Counsaâ—lers when he formed his Church It did not suppose that Christ had any Counsailers but to taxe him who takes upon him so Magisterially to dictate what was necessary then for Christ to doe This I called sawcinesse and justly Good Christians as I told him formerly ought to argue thus Christ formed his Church thus Therefore this is the best Forme not thus This is the best Forme therefore Christ Formed it after this manner The onely reason why I cited that text of St. Paul One Body one Spirit one Hope one Lord one Faith one Baptisme one God and Father of all was this that St. Paul reckoning up seven Bonds of Vnity should omit this which Mr. Serjeant makes to be the onely Bond of Vnity namely unus Papa One Pope or one Bishop of Rome Christ saw it necessary to make a Bond of Vnity between the Churches And that for this reason he gave the Principality to St Peter and Consequently to the Bishops of Rome All this he supposeth on his own head but doth not goe about to prove any thing if St. Paul had been of the same mind that was the proper place to have recorded it and doubtlesse he would not have omitted it This Argument which onely I used he doth not touch but fancieth that I make these seven Bonds of Vnity or Obligations to Vnity or meanes of Vnity to be seven markes of those which be in the Church which I never dreamed of And therefore I passe it by as impertinent Onely adding that our Ground for Vnity of Faith is our Creed and for Vnity of Government the very same forme of Discipline which was used in the Primitive Church and is derived from them to us When I wished that he had expressed himself more clearly whether he be for a beginning of Order and Vnity or for a single head of Power and Iurisdiction I spake of St. Peter of whoÌ„ the case is cleare that he had no more power over his Fellow Apostles then they had over him and that the Supremacy of Power rested in the Apostolicall College All that St. Peâ—er had was a beginning of Vnity What St. Peter had the Pope may pretend a claime to what he had not the Pope hath no pretence for Neither Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople nor any other ancient Bishop nor yet St. Gregory himself did ever dream of such a singular Headship of Power as he mentions that is that no Bishop in the Church should have Power but he Although the Court of Rome and their adherents come very near it at this day deriving all the power of Iurisdiction of all other Bishops from the Pope That Power which Iohn affected and St. Gregory impugned then and we impugne now is the Power of Vniversall Iurisdiction in the Exteriour Court If that were an Heresy in him as he confesseth let them looke to themselves Neither is the Bishops Primacy of Order so dry a Primacy as he pretendeth nor destitute of those Privileges which belong to a Primate of Order by the Law of Nature To call Assemblies sub paena spirituali or to intimate the necâ—ssity of calling them to propose doubts to receive Votes and to execute so farre as he is trusted by the Church This is the single Power of a Primate of Order but besides this he hath also a conjoint power in the Government of the Church What he saith to the prejudice of Generall Councells I have answered formerly He askes me What other Successour St. Peter had who could pretend to an Headship of Order except the Bishop of Rome I answer that I did not speake of what St. Peter had but what he might have had or may have whensoever the Representative Church that is a Generall Councell should give the Primacy of Order to another Bishop Since he is so great a Friend to the Schoole of Sorbon he can not well be ignorant what their learned Chancellour hath written expresly upon this Subject in his Booke de Aâ—seribilitate Papae not the taking away of the Papacy but Removall of it And what Bellarmine confesseth that neither Scripture nor Tradition doth prove that the Apâ—sâ—olicall See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed He urgeth that then the Church should remaine without this Principality at the death of every Pope untill all the Churches in Iapan China and India had given their consent yet I acknowledge it to be of perpetuall necessity First he doth me wrong I did not say positively that it is of perpetuall necessity but that I like it well enough and the reason being of perpetuall necessity seemeth strongly to imply the necessity of the thing Secondly I answer that there is no need to expect such far fetched Suffrages so long as the Primacy may remaine fixed where it is unlesse a Generall Councell or one as Generall as may be think fit to remove it and if a Generall Councell remove it it will take order for the future succession And this same reason doth clearly take away his answer to my instance That as the Dying of such a Bishop Lord Chancellour of England doth not perpetuate the Chancellourship to that Bishoprick because there is a Soveraign Prince to elect another so the dying of St. Peter Bishop of Rome doth not perpetuate the Primacy to that Bishoprick because a Generall Councell when it is in being hath power to transferre it to another See if they find it expedient for the publick good The Bishop knoweth right well that the Church of Christ is both his Spouse and his Family both the Governesse and the