out of this Island The Praemunire and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will and choice but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the fear being the occasion of their debates but the reasons or arguments offered in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision § 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsly determined then the voluntarinesse or freenesse of the determination will not be able to justifie it and on the other side if the determination were just then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling to doe it And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII the Bishop of Rome were supreme head or Governour of this Church of England or had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other viz to the Archbishop of Canterbury if he pleased § 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid and confirmed to have truth in them For the pretensions for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three either in his right as S. Peter's successour to the Vniversal Pastorship that including his power over England as a member of the whole or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope and his successours that sent him or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings the two former of these have been largely disproved already Chap. 4 5 and 6. in discourses purposely and distinctly applied to those pretensions The concession of Kings And for the third that will appear to have received its determination also I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes to which purpose I shall mention but one passage that of †in Goldast de Mon G. de Heimburg some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust Vsurp Pap where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope he saith that this is a submission in him and a patience above what any other suffers and proves it by this argument Nam eximius Rex Angliae Franciae Dux Marchio non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis quà m quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur The King of England and France any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decretals fabulously invented so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates and will be farther confirmed in the Negative if answer be first given to this Dilemma § 8. A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings was either so originally vested in our Kings that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased pleased and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings If it were not then was that grant an invalid null grant for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give presumptions invasions robberies in the giver which devolve no right to the receiver and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellour or any other of his officers from his place and commit it to another this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in the Book by them intituled The Institution of a Christian man Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King then is the King's power diminished and he consequently by this his act of which we treat become lesse a King then formerly he was And then we know that such acts which make him so are invalid acts it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power § 9. Two sorts of gifts To which purpose it must be observed 1. that some things are so ours that we may freely use them but cannot freely part with them as all those things wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons but intailed on our posterity and such the regal power is supposed to be 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties are so freely ours to give that when they are given they are departed out of our selves and cannot justly be by us resumed again in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good data eo ipso qu◠dantur fiunt accipientis what is given by the very act of being given becomes the goods of the receiver so other things are given to others so as we doe not part with them our selves they are as truly and properly ours after as before the Concession § 10. Some revocable Thus the Sun communicates his beams and with them his warmth and influences and yet retains all which it thus communicates and accordingly withdraweth them again And God the spring of all life and grace doth so communicate each of these that he may and doth freely withdraw them again and when he taketh away our breath we die And thus certainly the King being the fountain of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall
Eginartus Chancellor to Charles the Great and who wrote his life say it was done by Charles the Great And so doth Rhegino who lived in the next age And accordingly in Duarenus de Benef lib. 1. cap. 9. among the Minorum Gentium Patriarchatus that of Grado is reckoned for one and joyned with Aquileia Canterbury and Bourges § 14. Frequent in the East And that it was a frequent usage in the East may appear by the 12 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon where we finde mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cities honoured by letters patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignity of Metropoles and where the Councel represses the ambition of Bishops which sought those privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Rescripts from the Emperours and censures it in them that so sought it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons repressing the ambition of the Bishops but not cassating the Rescripts nor withdrawing the honour from the Metropolis so erected Of this Canon Balsamon saith that when it was made many Emperours had erected many Metropolitanes and naming three adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that other Bishopricks were thus honoured and that the Emperours did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power that was given them Where it is farther to be observed 1. that this Councel was within 20 years after that grant of Valentinian and consequently if Balsamon say right that at that time many Emperours had erected many there must needs be others before Valentinian 2. That the 17 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a city be built or restored by the Kings power let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Councel in Trullo Can 38. And then 3. that these two last Canons are reconciled with that 12 th of Chalcedon by the law of Alexius Comnenus and assented to by the Synod under him See Balsam in Can 38. Concil in Trullo who concludes that the King might doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon his own incitation or motion but it should not be lawful for any by base sollicitation to seek or obtain it adding that in that case upon any such Rescript of the Emperour for such erection it might be lawful for the Patriarch to suspend the confirmation of the Charter untill he represented to the Emperour what the Canons were in that case and understood if the Emperour did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his own motion which appearing the Patriarch was to admit thereof And accordingly the same Balsamon on Concil Carthag Can 16. doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis and anew to constitute Bishops and Metropolitanes § 15. So also to translate As for the transplanting it also from one city to another besides that the power of doing that is consequent to the former the examples of this practise are antient Examples in England Concil Angl p. 26. and frequent in this kingdome The passage set down out of the Annals of Gisburne may be sufficient From Caeruske the Metropolitan seat was translated to S. Davids by King Arthur where it continued till Henry I. and then was reduced to Canterbury § 16. In like manner 't is evident that the Kings of England have divided Bishopricks and erected new ones About the year 630. Kinigilsa King of the West-Saxons and Oswald of the Northumbers erected an Episcopal See at Dorchester and placed Birinus in it so saith Guil Malmesb de Gest Pontif Angl l. 2. About the year 660 Kenewalch King of the West-Saxons divided this Bishoprick and left part to Dorchester and assigned the western part to be the Diocese of the new Bishop which he constituted at Winchester so saith Hen Huntingd Hist l. 3. Then Winchester was subdivided in the time of King Ina who also erected a new Bishoprick at Sherburne and gave it to Aldelme so Henr Huntingd l. 4. and Guil Malm de Reg Angl l. 1. c. 2. And after the Norman conquest Henry I. divided Cambridgeshire from the See of Lincolne and erected the Bishoprick of Elie so saith Guiliel Malm de Gest Pontif Angl l. 4. and Florentius Wigorn Anno 1109. who lived at that time So also saith Eadmer with some variation Regi Archiepiscopo caeterÃsque Principibus regni visum fuit de ipsâ Parochiâ Lincolniae sumendum quo fieret alter Episcopatus cujus cathedra Principatus poneretur in Abbatiâ de Eli It seemed good to the King the Archbishop and the rest of the Princes of the kingdome to take as much out of the Diocese of Lincolne as would make another Bishoprick the chair whereof should be set up in the Abbacie of Elie. Adding indeed that Anselme a zealous promoter of the Papal authority as the author Eadmer was a disciple and admirer of Anselme wrote to Pope Paschalis desiring his consent to it as a thing fit to be done and yet to which he assures him he would not give his consent but salvâ authoritate Papae reserving the rights of the Pope Which though it doth suppose the Popes pretensions to that authority at that time and Anselm's yeilding it to him yet it proves also this right of our Kings to have been even then adhered to preserved and exercised by them as the former authors had set it down § 17. So to exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction Of this nature also is the authority of Kings in exempting any Ecclesiastical person from the Bishops Jurisdiction and granting Episcopal Jurisdiction to such person which is largely asserted and exemplified in Cawdries case 5. Report 14. One instance of this will serve for all that of William the Conqueror who exempted Battel Abbey in Sussex from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chichester and gave the Abbat Episcopal Jurisdiction in his Territorie and the words of the Charter are produced by M r Selden on Eadmer Hoc regali authoritate Episcoporum ac Baronum meorum attestatione constituo I appoint this by my royal authority by the attestation of my Bishops and Barons § 18. Kings Founders of Bishopricks and Patrons Adde even unto this that even the Westerne Princes in those parts where the Bishops of Rome have much hightned their power ever since the Kings were Christians the German Emperours the Kings of France and England alwayes claimed to be founders of all Bishopricks in their Dominions Patrons of them to bestow them by investiture that the Kings of France and England often claimed and were acknowledged to have right that no Legate from Rome might come into the Land and use jurisdiction without their leave All which put together are a foundation for this power of the Princes to erect or translate a Patriarchate It being withall acknowledged that
and communicate it to another And therefore may as freely bestow the power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England or which is all one of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome And then as this being by this means evidenced to be no more then an act of regal power which the King might lawfully exercise takes off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power or declared not to have had it de jure but only to have assumed it formerly which freedome from that obedience immediately clears the whole businesse of schisme The reasonablenesse of revoking it as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful superiour so will there not want many weighty reasons deducible from the antient Canons as well as the maximes of civil government why the King who may freely place the Primacy where he please should choose to place it in a Bishop and subject of his own nation rather then in a forein Bishop farre removed and him not only independent from that King but himself enjoying a Principality or territorie which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly and to improve the concessions which are either acknowledged or pretended to be made him to that purpose § 11. And here it is not amisse to observe in the reign of Queen Mary Title power of Supreme head of the Church retained by Queen Mary who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgie and made all speed to repeal what had been done in King Edward's time in that matter yet 1. that she left not the title of Supreme head till the third Parliament of her reigne and 2. that in the second Parliament authority is granted her to make and prescribe to all such Cathedral and Collegiate Churches as were erected by Henry the VIII such statutes and orders as should seem good to her and that statute never repealed but expired 3. that in her third Parliament it was with much difficulty obtained that the supremacie of the Pope should be acknowledged the matter being urged by her as that which concerned the establishing the Matrimonie of her Mother and her legitimation which depended upon the absolute power of the Pope 4. that in the 4 th year of her reigne when the Pope sent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England and to be Bishop of Sarisbury she would not permit him to come into the Land neither could he have that Bishoprick which as it was some check to the Pope's absolute supremacy and an assertion and vindication of the Regal power so being added to the former it will be lesse strange that this Supreme power of the Popes should be by the Bishops in the reigne of Henry VIII disclaimed and ejected § 12. Upon this bottome the foundation of Reformation being laid in England the superstructure was accordingly erected by the King and Bishops and Clergie in Convocation but this not all at once but by distinct steps and degrees Somewhat in the reigne of this Henry the VIII as in the number of the Sacraments the use of the Lords Prayer c. in the English tongue and the translation of the Bible all resolved on in Synod the King which duly assembled it presiding in it by his Vicar General § 13. This was much farther advanced in the time of his son Edward the VI. who being a childe The advance of the Reformation in K ng Edward's daies and the Laws and Constitution of this Realm committing the exercise of the Supreme power in that case into the hands of a Protector what was thus regularly done by that Protector cannot be doubted to be of the same force and validity as if the King had been of age and done it himself Or if it should it would be an unanswerable objection against all hereditary successive Monarchy a maim in that form of Government which could no way be repaired there being no amulet in the Crown which secures the life of each King till his successor be of age nor promise from heaven that the children of such Princes shall by succeeding to the Crown advance by miracle to the years and abilities of their Parents So irrational is the scoffe and exception of some that what was done in King Edward's daies being the Acts of a childe is as such to be vilified and despised § 14. In the Reign of this Prince many Changes were made in the Church and Recessions from the Doctrines and practises of Rome Beside that of Images the lawfulnesse of the marriage of the Clergie was asserted a body of an English Liturgie formed and setled for publick use the Eucharist appointed to be administred to the people in both kindes c. and though Bishop Gardner of Winchester and Bishop Bonner of London made opposition against these changes and for some misbehaviours herein were imprison'd and two more moderate learned men Bishop Tunstal of Durham and Bishop Day of Chichester upon another score yet Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Bishops making up the farre greater number joyned with the Supreme power in the Reformation And as it is no great marvell that there should be some so few dissenters so the punishment inflicted on them will not be deemed excessive by any that shall compare it with the farre severer executions the fire and fagot which were soon after in Queen Mary's daies inflicted on Archbishop Cranmer Bishop Ridley and Bishop Latimer as the reward of their disputing in the Synod against Transubstantiation and the like cruelties on multitudes more and the Exiles and deprivations which befell so many others in her Reigne However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reigne of King Edward wrought as hath been said by the Supreme power with the consent of the major part of Bishops § 15. In Queen Elizabeth's That which afterward followed in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's reigne may be thought more distant and lesse reconcileable to our pretensions not that of her sex her being a woman for so was Qu. Mary before which acted so vigorously for the contrary way and the constitution of our Monarchy invests equally either sex in the plenitude of Regal power in sacred as well as civil affairs and it was but to raise envie against the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's sex as before King Edward's non-age hath by some been thought fit to be mention'd and cannot by any sober judgment be admitted to have any force in it but because as it is from our histories more pertinently objected most of the Bishops were by her divested of their dignities and new created in their stead To this therefore in the last place I must apply my self to give satisfaction And
care of the whole Province and all the inferior cities and Bishops in them and the Bishops commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is straight added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers which hath continued in force from the first times also unto that Councel Where if it be demanded what is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should doubtlesse be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the meaning of the Canon to be agreeably to the expresse words of other Canons that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church which he may in all things wherein that alone is concerned exercise independently from the commands or directions of any So in any thing of a more forein nature wherein any other Church is concerned equally with that and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without directions from the Metropolitane and that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii any thing that another is concerned in as well as he without the Metropolitane § 24. Act. 15 Can. 9. So in the Councel of Chalcedon the direction is given for appeals in this order from the Bishop to the Metropolitane from the Metropolitane to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate of the Diocese or Province as where there are more Metropolitanes then one as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulp. Obser D. de Offic. Procons and elsewhere frequently there some one is Primate or Patriarch among them and to him lyes the appeal in the last resort and from him to no other see Justinian Novel 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit 4. leg 29. who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree § 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Councel of Ephesus shall conclude this matter when upon some claim of the Patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim and deduce their privilege of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independence from any forein Bishop from the very Apostles times A sanctis Apostolis say they nunquam possunt ostendere quòd adfuerit Antiochenus ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam neque alius quisquam From the very Apostles times they can never shew that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained or being absent sent the grace of ordination to this Island but that the Bishops of Constantia the Metropolis of that Island by name Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius and all the orthodox Bishops from the Apostles times ab his qui in Cypro constituti sunt have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum permansit Cypriorum Synodus as they had done from the times of the very Apostles still appealing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ancient manner the ancient custome the privileges which from their first plantation they had enjoyed and that from the Apostles themselves And accordingly that Councel condemned the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch as that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and Canons of the holy Fathers and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bishops of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custome but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Province which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This holy and Oecumenical Synod hath decreed that the privileges and rights of every Province shall be conserved pure and inviolate as they have enjoyed them from the beginning according to the custome that hath anciently been in force All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops and together excluding all forein pretenders from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches and requiring all to remain as they were first thus constituted Wherein as there be many things of useful observation which will be more fitly appliable in the progresse of this discourse so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitanes and of the authority which they have by Canon and Primitive custome over them which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schisme set down in the former chapters CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Romes Supremacy by Christs donation to S. Peter § 1. THE Scene being thus prepared and the nature and sorts of Schisme defined and summarily enumerated our method now leads us to inquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schisme And these pretended evidences may be of several sorts according to the several Species of this sort of Schisme described and acknowledged by us § 2. The first charge against us Our casting out the Popes Supremacy The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a presumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter over all Churches in the world which being in the dayes of Henry VIII renounced and disclaimed first by both Vniversities and most of the greatest and famous Monasteries of this kingdome in their negative answer and determination of this question An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England more then any other forein Bishop hath and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and scales and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by the Bishops and Clergy and confirmed by their corporal oaths and at last the like imposed by Act of Parliament 35 Hen. VIII c. 1. all this is looked on and condemn'd as an Act of Schisme in this Church and Nation in renouncing that power of S. Peters Successors placed over all Christians by Christ § 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it or else the objection will be of no
1. § 16. In this matter as much as concerns the Ordination of those new Bishops that it was performed regularly according to the Antient Canons each by the Imposition of the hands of three Bishops hath been evidently set down out of the Records and vindicated by M r Mason in his Booke de Minist Anglic and may there be view'd at large if the Reader want satisfaction in that point § 17. The Creation of new Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time vindicated As for the second remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place it will receive answer by these degrees First that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbishop of Canterbury falling neer upon the death of her Predecessor Queen Mary it was very regular for Queen Elizabeth to assigne a successor to that See then vacant Archbishop Parker 2 dly that those Bishops which in Queen Mary's daies had been exiled and deprived and had survived that calamity were with all justice restored to their dignities 3 dly that the Bishops by her deprived and divested of their dignities were so dealt with for refusing to take the oath of Supremacy formed and enjoyned in the daies of Henry the VIII and in the first Parliament of this Queen revived and the statutes concerning it restored to full force before it was thus imposed on them So that for the justice of the cause of their deprivation it depends Immediatly upon the Right and power of the Supreme Magistrate to make laws to impose oathes for the securing his Government and to inflict the punishments prescribed by those laws on the disobedient but Originally upon the truth of that decision of the Bishops and Clergie and Vniversities in the reigne of Henry the VIII that no authority belonged in this Kingdome of England to the Bishop of Rome more then to any other forein Bishop The former of these I shall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth in the maintenance of which all Government is concerned and hath nothing peculiar to our pretensions which should suggest a vindication of it in this place And the second hath I suppose been sufficiently cleared in the former chapters of this discourse which have examined all the Bishop of Romes claims to this Supremacy And both these grounds being acknowledged or till they be invalidated or disproved supposed to have truth and force in them the conclusion will be sufficiently induced that there was no injustice in that Act of the Queens which divested those Bishops which thus refused to secure her Government or to approve their fidelity to their lawful Soveraign § 18. Fourthly that those Bishops being thus deprived it was most Regular and Necessary and that against which no objection is imaginable that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared that other Bishops should be nominated and advanced to those vacant Sees and that what should be for the future acted by those new Bishops in Convocation was regular Synodical and valid beyond all exception in respect of the formality of it § 19. Fiftly that as by the Vniform and joynt consent of these Bishops thus constituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Religion was agreed on and set out by Order of both Archbishops Metropolitans and the rest of the Bishops for the Vnity of doctrine to be taught and holden of all Parsons Vicars and Curates c. and this not before the third year of that Queens reigne So before this time there had not been as farre as appears any debate in any former Convocation of that Queens reigne concerning Religion only an offer of a disputation betwixt eight Clergie-men on each side which came to nothing but all done by the Parliaments restoring what had been debated and concluded by former Synods in the reigns of King Henry the eight and Edward the sixt without any new deliberation in any present Synod By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Supremacy as also of the book of Common-prayer as it was in the time of Edward the sixt with few alterations which included the abolition of the Romish Missalls And so all this again as farre as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the Reformation is regularly superstructed on the forementioned foundation of Regal Supremacy with the concurrence and advise of Synods which hath been in the former part of this discourse I hope sufficiently vindicated § 20. And that being granted it cannot be here necessary or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church either as branches of the Reformation or under the name or title of it For our present enquirie being no farther extended then this whether the true Church of England as it stands by Laws established have in Reforming been guilty of Schisme as that signifies in the first place a recession and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiours and this being cleared in the Negative by this one evidence that all was done by those to whom and to whom only the rightful power legally pertained viz the King and Bishops of this Nation supposing as now regularly we may having competently proved it and answered all the colours that have been offered against it that the Pope had no right to our obedience and consequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our superiours it is presently visible that all other matters will belong to some other heads of Discourse and consequently must be debated upon other principles All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it should as I believe it will never be proved to be unjust falling under the head of Heresie not of schisme and for acts of sacrilege and the like impieties as certainly Henry the eighth and some others cannot be freed from such they are by us as freely charged upon the actors as by any Romanist they can be But yet sacrilege is no more schisme then it is adulterie and the Church on which one sin hath been committed cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other CHAP. VIII Of the Second sort of Schisme as that is an Offence against mutual Charity This divided into three species and the first here examined § 1. BUT beside that first species of schisme as it is an offence against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in the Church from the guilt of which I have hitherto indevoured to vindicate our Church another was taken notice of as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity and peace and charity which Christ left among his Disciples And to that I must now proceed as farre as the Accusations of the Romanist give us occasion to vindicate our innocence § 2. Three branches of the second sort of Schisme And for method's sake this branch of Schisme may be subdivided into three species The first is a breach in the doctrines or Traditions a departure from the
it being thus farre evident that it is our avowed wish and our care should it be denied to be our lot a special mark of the Church of England's Reformation to preserve the Vnity of the Apostolical Faith and Primitive practises as intire as we would have done Christ's body or garment and the probability being not weak on our side that the fact of the crucifying souldiers which hath so much of our abhorrence and detestation shall never be our choice our known or wilfull guilt or if it be that we so farre recede from our Profession CHAP. IX The Second species of this Schisme examined as it is an offence against external peace or Communion Ecclesiastical § 1. This Church free from breach of Communion Ecclesiastical NOW for the second branch of this second sort of Schism as it is an offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical This cannot with any colour be charged on us As appears by six Considerations of whom these 6 things are manifest and that by the tenure of our Reformation 1. The first that we have alwaies retained the form of Government in and under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical assemblies or Communion viz that of the Bishop and his inferiour officers in every Church and so in that respect are in Ignatius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the altar have no part of that breach of Ecclesiastical communion upon us which consists in casting out that order 2. The second That as we maintain that Order so we regularly submit to the exercise of it acknowledge the due authority of these Governors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things that belong to their cognizance secundum Deum according to God 3. The third That the circumstances which are necessary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the assembling our selves together for the publick worship whether 1. that of place our Churches consecrated to those offices or 2. that of time the Lords day and other primitive festivals and Fasts and in their degree every day of the week or 3. that of forms of Prayer and Praises celebration of Sacraments and sacramentals Preaching Catechizing c. or 4. that of Ceremonies such as the practise of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us or lastly that of Discipline to binde all these performances upon every member of the Church in his office or place are all entered into our Confessions setled by Article as part of our establishment and so the want of either or all of those are not imputable to our Reformation § 2. The fourth Fourthly That in every of these three whatsoever the Romanist requires us to adde farther to that which we voluntarily and professedly receive 1. the supreme transcendent monarchick power of the Pope 2. the acknowledgment of and obedience to his supremacy 3. the use of more ceremonies festivals c. is usurpation or imposition of the present Romanists absolutely without Authority or Precedent from the antient Primitive Church from whom we are so unwilling to divide in any thing that we choose a conformity with them rather then with any later modell and if by receding from the Ordo Romanus in any particular we doe not approve our selves to come neerer to the first and purest times it is the avow'd Profession of our Church the wish and purpose of it which I may justly style part of our establishment to reduce and restore that whatsover it is which is most pure and Primitive in stead of it § 3. The fift Fiftly That as we exclude no Christian from our communion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us being ready to admit any to our assemblies that acknowledge the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles so we as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external Communion with all the members of all other Christian Churches as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart and one lip and would most willingly by the use of the antient method of literae Communicatoriae maintain this Communion with those with whom we cannot corporally assemble and particularly with those which live in obedience to the Church of Rome § 4. The sixt Sixtly that the onely hindrances that interpose and obstruct this desired freedome of external Communion are wholly imputable to the Romanists § 5. First their excommunicating and separating from their assemblies all that maintain communion with the Church of England which we know was done by Bull from the Pope about the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth before which time those English which had not joyned in our Reformation might and did come to our assemblies and were never after rejected by us but upon their avowed contumacie against the orders of our Church which consequently brought the censures on them and to that it is visibly consequent that we that were cast out cannot be said to separate as in the former part of this discourse hath been demonstrated § 6. Secondly their imposing such conditions on their Communion belief of doctrines and approbation of practises which we neither believe nor approve of and are ready to contest and maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by that we cannot without sinning or seeming to sin against conscience without wilfull falling on one side or dissembling and unsound confession on the other side or at least the scandal of one of these accept of their communion upon such conditions as hath formerly been demonstrated also § 7. A consideration concerning our Church And in this matter it were very well worthy our considering how farre the Articles of our Church of England proceed in accord with the present Roman doctrines and practises and in what particulars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot perswade our selves to consent to them and then to offer it to the Vmpirage of any rational arbitrator whether we that unfeignedly professe to believe so much and no more nor to be convinced by all the reasons and authorities proofs from Scripture or the first Christian writers those of the first three hundred years or the four General Councels produced by them being in full inclination and desire of minde ready to submit upon conviction are in any reason or equity or according to any example or precept of Christ or his Apostles or the antient Primitive Church to be required to offer violence to our mindes and to make an unsound profession or else for that one guilt of not doing so to be rejected as hereticks and denied the benefit of Christian Communion which we heartily desire to extend and propagate to them which deny it to us All this thus put together and applied to this present matter will certainly vindicate us from all appearance of guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schisme CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism as