Tired and sore and art I believe heartily weary of the company of this same Totnes Arch-deacon as thou hast cause to complain p. 35. but thou must have patience a little longer while we make Hue and Cry after the Doctor 's fourth proposition lest if it should be lost Pag. 21. he sue thee for damages I have search'd Phil. as for a Needle in a bottle of Hay and at length I caught it by the skirts in p. 26. and afterwards as cast out into the Pag. 14. abstract of the premisses CHAP. XII The Doctor 's Fourth PROPOSITION The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. establishing the High Commission Court was not the foundation of ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Tim. THou canst not but remember how fully and largely the Doctor both disproved and exposed thy singular Notion of this point and now with thy wonted Front taking little or no notice of the Author's discourse thou saist the same over again That Branch which gave the Queen power to settle the High Commission being repealed by 13 Car. 1. 12. For my part 't is beyond my apprehension to find out where the Authority of Ecclesiastical Courts can or does consist For thy part it's well thou speakst for thy self who is the dull fool now what not apprehend what every body else apprehends is a singular non-sensical notion and barrenness of Apprehension sufficient strength or warrant to batter Government Phil. I cannot beat it into my head who gave them that Authority they pretend to Not the Pope as of old not the Common I am sure nor can possibly the Canon-Law or Statute-Law â—â—g 24. Tim. Well fare thee Phil what need of reason thou hast done all in a word and had not the Doctor demonstrated 1. That the Pope did never give us that Authority 2. That Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is establish'd by Common-Law 3. By an infinite number of Statutes 4thly and lastly By that very Statute that takes off the power of the High-Commission we might have taken thy word but thou hast opened a wide door and set us in a large Field wherein we shall follow thee with patience upon the Heads mentioned and hasten to the end of our pleasant Journey SECT I. Our Ecclesiastical Courts not impowred originally from the Pope Phil. THat the Pope gave them their Authority of old is evident for the Arch-deacon rightly notes that till William the Conqueror there were no Bishops Courts in England but the Hundred Courts But the Pope made William the Conqueror set up such Ecclesiastical Courts as were at Rome to proceed according to the Canons of the Pope and was there ever any Statute made from William the Conqueror or rather Henry 3. to Hen. 8. but by the consent of the Popish Clergy that is to say the consent of the Pope their Head p. 6. Tim. Thou art a bold undertaker Phil. but is' t possible thou shouldst be ignorant that the Conqueror was not so much a slave to the Pope that he confirm'd and published the Laws of his Predecessor that he maintained the Ecclesiastical investiture in the Crown all which thou may'st find in Selden's Notes upon Eadm as also the Proclamation mentioned for the distinction of Courts seeing thou art at a loss about it Yea doth not that Law of the Conqueror suppose the prae-existence of our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction tho' not in a distinct Court before the Conquest Yea canst imagine that when Spiritual Causes were tried in Hundret and at the Civil Courts of Judgment that Lay-men had any thing to do with them more than to be present quaere However did not the Doctor rightly observe that that very Law that divided the Courts was made by the King 's own power not the Pope's and with the Council of his own Realm alone Tho' William the Conqueror was a Papist doth it follow that he did nothing and made no Laws but quatenus a Papist and not as King of England Do not the Statutes of Hen. 8. and my Lord Coke plainly prove that Canons and Foreign Laws become the King's Laws when confirmed by Parliament or made so by reception voluntary consent or custom Must all our Laws before Hen. 8. and after the Conquest be thus damn'd for Popish Laws and the Pope's Laws and those too that were directly made in provision against the Pope himself and his Usurpations as before Was ever such stuff vented before it's well thou hast a Salvo rather from Hen. 3. tho' that also gives Sentence against thee SECT II. Ecclesiastical Courts by Common-Law Phil. BUT for him to say they keep Courts by Common-Law is the idlest of all dreams the Common-Law of England is ancienter than our Christianity But Bishops much less Arch-Bishops and Arch-Deacons as now in England are of later date therefore their Courts can have no foundation in Common-Law Tim. Thou art a Lawyer Phil. now with all thy Law canst thou deny this Proposition that long Ancient and general use is Common-Law in England as saith my Lord Coke or canst thou deny this Assumption that our Ecclesiastical Courts are of very ancient and general use in England if not as thou dost not dare what hinders this Conclusion that we keep those Courts by Common-Law 2. Again Phil. If there was such a thing as Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England before the Conquest as most certainly there was how stood it then thou grantest not by Canon-Law it was exercised contrary to the Canons I grant it stood not by Statute-Law viz. before we had any Statutes then it must stand before the Conquest upon Common-Law 3. And indeed since the Division of the Courts by the Conqueror the same ancient Ecclesiastical Authority is continued in its exercise as to its substance by Common-Law tho' in that new mode as distinguish'd from the Civil and in distinct Courts as matters of other nature that have their foundation in Common-Law tho' somewhat new modified by Statute continue to be Common-Law still so far as they are not altered as no Man of sence will deny 4. Yea the very Courts themselves tho' divided by the Conqueror continuing afterwards so long a time in general use in England before Statute-Law came thereby to be customary and contracted the nature of Common-Law and certainly there is no necessity that every particular in Common-Law should have its beginning before Christianity in England if it fall under the condition of ancient and general use and Phil. thou knowst that Statute that limits the time that is required to make a custom in England and before Christianity or from the beginning was never put into the definition of Common-Law 5. Lastly That they were so hath thus further demonstration That all the Statutes from Magna Charta suppose the Spiritual Court 's pre-existing i. e. by Common Law or ancient allowed usage of the whole Realm And my Lord Coke is express that Spiritual Causes belong to these Courts by Common Law But to put this crotchet out of thy head for ever I
it said Take thou Authority to preach the word of God or administer the Sacraments Here Phil. thy understanding fail'd thee the political power of the Keys do in a sence belong to our Kings but not the purely Spiritual power except mediately as at first was granted the King is a Priest in tanto not in Toto But if thou canst prove our Kings to be Priests in all respects Look to it Mr. Baxter you are undone for then we have a proper Spiritual head of the Church of England yea look to it Phil. for near thou hast undone thy self in thy state Religion For if the Head be properly a Priest what body can fit him acting as a Priest in making Canons and governing the Church but a body of Priests Is the Parliament with whom he maketh other Laws or the Judges Sheriffs Justices c. by whom he governs the Kingdom a fit body for a Priestly head Do not these act under him rather as a King and a Convocation of Priests and Spiritual Courts more congruously act under him as a Priest if he be in all points a Priest and have all the Spiritual power of the Keys both in making Canons i. e. Spiritual Laws and governing the Church by them Poor Ape why art thou venturing still At this so subtle game and play'st so ill SECT II. Another piece of his Logick against Chancellors c. SEcondly We have another such trial of thy honest Logick upon a part of his Proem which if thou hadst quite as thou say'st thou hadst almost forgotten little had been lost 'T is this the Doctor intimates that Chancellors Registers c. are Assistants by Law allowed to Bishops c. and that in 1 Cor. 12. 28. we read of helps in Government which he intimates is a general warrant to the Law of the Land for such allowance Now reflect upon thy answer Phil. in stead of an answer thou very honestly imposest and intrudest another Conclusion Thou say'st he would prove these inferior Officers to be all Church-officers Jure Divino which was the very objection he went about to remove he doth deny them to be Church-officers strictly speaking neither doth he affirm them to be Jure Divino but he saith and thou say'st nothing to the contrary but a great truth that Esquire Dun is so too he saith that if making and keeping Acts of Court if managing and ordering Causes aright if serving Summons and executing Mandates of the Judge if these be reasonable things and expedient in government then the persons appointed by Law to perform these things are useful in government and agreeable to that general word and warrant in Scripture and upon the very same moral and prudential ground Deacons were at first appointed by the Apostles Acts 6. and many other things justly practised even in the first 300. years though not found in use in the Apostles time for the succeeding Ages of the Church inherited Reason and prudence whose proper use is to apply general Rules in Scripture with particular conveniency to times and places but Phil. if thou hast neither Reason nor Prudence how shall a man beat this into thy head Pag. 25. Thou say'st the Doctor has no guts in his brains one would think thou hadst been in Devonshire and that some body had taken out thy brains and put in White-pot So much upon the Proem too CHAP. VII A step towards the matter of the Doctors Book and the main Battle Phil. THese things Tim. are about the out-works only but do not I quit my self like a man when I come into the open field or at least like a crafty combatant Tim. At present I shall only remark to thy eternal honour that thou preparest thy self like a man of war indeed and viewest thy enemy in all the strength of his five Propositions in opposition to thine Pag. 5. against Ecclesiastical Government but durst thou have stood to any one of them thou hadst been a Man indeed But instead of that thou fliest from his and thy own Propositions too and leavest them to defend themselves And as a man knock'd o th' head and stun'd with the blows received before thou staggerest and ramblest from one impertinent story to another but always avoidest the main point Phil. Perhaps I had reason the point was sharp CHAP. VIII PROP. I. Our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not derived from the Pope but from the Crown before the Reformation by Hen. 8. Tim. NOW for the Rancounter as thy War-like word is Is this Proposition true or no If it be not true why dost thou grant it at last If it be true why dost oppose it and shew all thy little Wit and impertinent story to obscure or weaken it thou art the Author of Naked Truth Phil. I will speak plain anon but I 'le have liberty to shew my Parts and Reading therefore quomodo probas Domine D. D. Pag. 5. Tim. The Doctor begins his proof by minding thee of the Ancient Constitution of the English Church and teaching thee if thou be not too old or too stubborn to learn That it was a known Law 25 Edw. 1. and 25 Edw. 3. long before Hen. 8. that the Church of England was founded in Episcopacy by our Kings c. and not in the Papacy To this great ground of truth how wild an Answer have we Pag. 5. Thou say'st with equal ignorance and scorn I always thought till now that our Church of England I know not for his Church of England was neither founded upon Episcopacy nor the Papacy but on Christ the Rock of Ages Would any man alive beside Phil. have had so many blunders in so few words 1. The Doctor saith as the Law saith that our Church was founded in Episcopacy thou provest by thy wise thought I always thought that it was not founded VPON Episcopacy thou art it seems a thinking black-coat however that may pass for thy first Blunder 2. And the second is like unto it the Doctor says our Church was founded in Episcopacy thou thinkst it was founded ON Christ as if the Church could not be founded in Episcopacy and ON Christ too thy second blunder 3. A Church may be founded on Christ his Person and doctrine principally as the chief Corner-stone and yet mediately secondarily and doctrinally too on his Apostles and their Successors the Bishops thou wast not aware of this Phil. thy third blunder 4. A Church may be said to be founded two ways in its constitution essentially considered and so ours was founded by Christ through the means of his Ministers first calling us secondly Organically by way of Donation Endowment Investiture and Secular advantages thus our Church was at first founded by our Kings as the Law saith this not heeded made thy fourth blunder 5. But the heaviest blunder is thy stumbling over the main observation for which the Doctor cited that Law Viz. that seeing our Church was founded by our Kings in Episcopacy therefore the Bishops power did not
originally nor in those times according to our own Laws depend upon the Pope but upon the Crown Q. E. D. which was then the sence of the Laws and all the States of the Realm long before Hen. 8. as also is noted and assented unto and insisted on at the beginning of his Reformation To assert the contrary is certainly to assert a Popish opinion and one of the greatest Arguments the Romanists use to Justifie the Papal Vsurpation in England take it as thou canst Phil. Leave off this club-way of arguing thou wilt ensnare thy self thy Talent Phil. lies another way thou hast no clear distinguishing Head thou art better at dividing and more skill'd in the methods of confounding than of founding the Church of England What didst mean Phil. by that non-sensical cant upon a place of Scripture I know it was not thy design to stumble upon the Rock of Ages and fall upon St. Peter's Phil. Enough of this Tim. fool thou know'st to escape the Law we may flie to the Gospel thou knowst Phil well enough he is for a Legal Scripture and Religion except when it is against him besides he finds canting on Scripture tho' never so impertinently sounds very lusciously in some Mens ears that I have a mind to gratifie SECT II. His other Arguments against our power before Hen. 8. Tim. THen let 's see how thou prosperest with thy other Arguments against this point 1. Thou saist the Pope was Head of our Church before Hen. 8. but 't is evident he was not so legally either by Law or Construction of Law or really so in the Constitution of the Church of England he was only so in pretence and by illegal Vsurpation he had never possession by Law but what he usurped was contrary to Law and the ancient Customes of the Land as my Lord Coke demonstrates tho' he is not to be taken notice of by Phil. H. yea his very possession in fact was never undisturbed for any considerable time together The Doctor informed thee better that it was the sence of the whole Kingdom that the Pope's Power and Jurisdiction here was usurped and illegal Contrary to God's Laws the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and in derogation of the Imperial Crown thereof and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto before Hen. 8. vid. 28. H. 8. c. 16. 2. Thou saist boldly and ignorantly that H. 8. made Himself Head of the Church by Parliament that 's another Popish opinion the Law is open Phil. and Argument too depending on the former for both the Law and my Lord Coke affirm that the Statutes in that behalf were only declarative of the Ancient Fundamental Rights of the Imperial Crown of England which alone can Justifie the King's Title of the Head of the Church 3. Thou arguest subtilly that before H. 8. Appeals were frequently made to the Pope and that then our Courts were Rome's inferiour Courts What then why then upon the Popes ceasing to be Head the Courts were dissolved i. e. Just as our inferiour Courts were dissolved upon the dissolution of the High Commission Thou ought'st to know that our Laws never allowed or required Appeals to Rome and that our Courts continued in their proper Legal being under the Royal as well as and better than under the Popish head 4. At last thou questionest whether ever a Statute was made from the Conquest or rather from Hen. 3. to Hen. 8. but by the consent of the Popish Clergy i. e. the consent of the Pope their Head Art stark mad Phil were all our Laws Antichristian before Hen. 8. was no Law made by the Nation or Realm as such but only as Popish Are all our Ancient Statutes the Popes Laws Did the Pope consent to all the provisions and premunire's in the Laws made directly against himself Phil. If my Arguments fail take some Stories and my free Concessions and then I hope thou wilt be pleased 1. My Stories prove there was old Tugging betwixt our Kings and the Pope from time to time Tim. Well said at last Phil. and was not the Law on the Kings side Then the Pope had neither legal nor full nor quiet possession Thy cause languisheth in thy own hand and 't is time to yield to it Thy Concessions are most ingenuous instances of a good nature or a baffled cause Speak out man Phil. I grant that the Laws of the Popish party were contrary to the sence of King and Parliament Well said in part Phil. therefore the King and Pag. 13 Parliament were not altogether Popish But prethee what Laws could concern us contrary to the sence of King and Parliament who made those Laws for us in England Tim. But the matter is not clear yet Speak out man Phil. 'T is undoubtedly true that the Crown of this Realm is and has been before Hen. 8. Imperial that is de jure not de facto thanks to the wicked Usurper and his Legats it ought not to have been done it was commonly de facto done before Hen. 8. Tim. This is something more but not all Thou dost imply indeed by commonly that it was not always so done And if the Pope before Hen. 8. was a Vsurper he had not right here and the Jus the Law was against him For if he had had the Law on his side how had he been a Vsurper Speak a little plainer Phil. and all 's well so far Phil. I do ingenuously confess our Ancient Ecclesiastical Government and Laws depended upon the Crown and not upon the Pope by the Laws Pag. 2â— of England and in the Judgment of all the States of the Kingdom before Hen. 8. and so did also the Execution of those Laws by those Governors in the same publick Judgment These are the Doctors words and all this is true and the very Naked Truth in other words varied which saith That all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction till Hen. 8. was derived from the Pope but my meaning was that it was not derived from the Pope before Hen. 8. thus thou seest I have no mind to quarrel Tim. 'T is well enough but why didst not say so much at first or excuse thy obscurity and distinguish sooner Yea why didst contend for so many pages against that which thou art compell'd to yield at last Art thou obstinate that thou must be press'd before thou wilt confess or hadst an Itch upon thee to vent thy stories as if the world had nothing to do but to hearken to thy impertinencies If storying were arguing thou art a brave fellow indeed but this way it seems thou art not formidable The Doctor set thee up for a Shrovetide-Cock as thy phrase is and thou hast cut thy own Comb. So much for the first Proposition CHAP. IX The Doctor 's Second PROPOSITION Hen. 8. did not make void the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Neither was it void before it was restor'd by 1 Edw. 6. 2. Phil. I Hope I quit my self better here Tim. Much at one First thou