affirm That neither the King of England nor the Church of England neither Convocation nor Parliament did breake his two Necessary Bonds of Christian Vnity or either of them or any part of either of them But that the Very Breakers and Violaters of these Rules were the Pope and Court of Rome They did breake his Rule of Faith by adding new points to the Necessary Doctrin of saving Truth which were not the Legaceyes of Christ and his Apostles nor delivered unto us by Universall and perpetuall Tradition The Pope and Court of Rome did breake his second Rule of Vnity in Discipline by obtruding their excessive and intolerable usurpations vpon the Christian world and particularly upon the Church of England as necessary Conditions of their Communion It appeareth plainly by comparing that which hath been said with his positioÌ„ of the case that after all his Bragges of undeniable evidence and unquestionable certeinty he hath quite missed the question We joine with him in his rule of Faith Wee oppose not St. Peters Primacy of Order and he him self dare not say that St. Peter had a larger or more extended power then the rest of his Fellow Apostles And though wee cannot force our understandings to assent that after the death of S. Peter Linus or Cletus or Clemens or Anacleâ—us were Superiours to S. Iohn and had actuall Iurisdiction over him who had as large a commission immediatly from Christ as S. Peter himselfe and larger then any succeeding Romane Bishop ever had Yet to shew him how little wee are concerned in it and for his clearer conviction wee are willing to suppose that they were his Superiours and give him leave to make all the advantage of his second Rule which he can in this cause And here if I regarded not the satisfaction of my self and the Reader more then his opposition I might withdraw my hand from the Table But I am so great a Friend of Ingenuity that I will for once discharge his Office and shew the World demonstratively and distinctly what Branches of Papall power were cast out of England by Henry the eighth upon which consideration the weight of the whole Controversy doth lye For it is agreed between us that if it appeare by rigorous Evidence that all those Branches of Papall power which were renounced and cast out of England by Henry the eight were grosse Vsurpattons then his renouncing was no eriminall Breach but a lawfull self enfranchisement And by undeniable consequence the Guilt of â—chism resteth upon them who made the Vsurpations that is the Pope and Court of Rome I adde further upon the equity of my second Ground that although Henry the eight had cast out something more then be ought yet if wee hold not out more then wee ought and be ready to admitt all which ought to be admitted by us then we are innocent and free from the Guilt of Schism and it resteth soly upon them who either will have more then their due or nothing Wheresoever the fault is there the Guilt of Schisme is If the fault be single the Guilt is single if the fault be mutuall the Guilt is mutuall And for rigorous Evidence There cannot possibly be any Evidence more demonstrative what Papall power was cast out of England then the very Acts of Parliaments themselves by which it was cast out Let us view them all The first Act made in the Reign of Henry the eight which hath any referente to Rome is the Act for holding Plurality of Benefices against the lawes of the land by dispensation from the Court of Rome making licenses for non Residence from the Court of Rome to be voide and the party who procureth such Licenses for Pluralityes or Non-residence to forfeyt twenty pounds and to lose the profits of that Benefice which he holdeth by such dispensation It were a pretty thing indeed if the Church and Kingdome should make necessary lawes and the Pope might give them liberty to break them at his pleasure The second Act is that No person shall be cited out of tâ—e diocesse where he dwelleth except in certain cases Which though it may seem to reflect upon the Court of Rome yet I do not find that it is concerned in it but the Arches Audience and other Archiepiscopall Courts within the Realm The third Act is meerly declarative of the law of the land as well the Common lawes as the Statute lawes and grounded wholy upon them as by the View of the Statute it self doth appeare So it casteth out no forraine power but what the lawes had cast out before The summe of it is this That all Causes Matrimoniall Testamentary or about Tithes c. shall be heard and finally judged in England by the proper Iudges Ecclesiasticall and Civill respectively and not elswhere notwithstanding any forrein Inhibitions Appeales Sentences citations suppensions or Excommunications And that if any English Subject procure a Processe Inhibition Appeale c. From or to the Court of Rome or execute them to the hinderance of any processe here he shall incurre the Penalties ordained by the Statute of provision or premunire made in the sixteenth yeare of King Richard the second against such as make provision to the See of Rome This law was eâ—larged afterwards to all causes of Ecclesiasticall cognisance and all appeales to Rome forbidden The fourth Act is an Act for punishing of Heresy Wherein there are three clauses that concern the Bishop of Rome The First is this And that there be many Heresies and paines and punishments for Heresies Declared and ordained in and by the Canonicall Sanctions and by the Lawes and Ordinations made by the Popes or Bishops of Rome and by their Authorities for holding doing preaching of things contrary to the said Canonicall Sanctions Lawes and Ordinances which be but humane being meer repugnant and contrarious to the royall Prerogative Regall Iurisdiction Lawes Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm The second Clause is that No License be obtained of the Bishop of Rome to Preach in any part of this Realm or to doe any thing contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm or the Kings Prerogative Royall The third Clause followeth That the Decrees of the Bishops of Rome not confirmed by Holy Scriptures were never commonly attested to be any Law of God or man within this Realme And that it should not be deemed Heresy to speak or doe contrary to the pretended power or Authority of the Bishop of Rome made or given by Humane Lawes and not by Scriptures nor to speake or Act contrary to the Lawes of the Bishop of Rome being contrary to the Lawes of this Realm The Fifth Act is an Act concerning the Submission of the Clergy to the Kings Majesty The scope of it is this that the Clergy shall not assemble in Convocation nor make or proniulge any new Canons without the Kings License Hitherto there is nothing new in point of Law Then that the King should have
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
to ruine c. And by the Counsaile of my Clergy and princes we have ordained Bishops through out the Cities and constituted over them Arch-bishop Boniface the Popes Legate Qui est missus Sancti Petri. Andâ—we have decreed every Yeare to congregate a Synod that in our Presence the Canonicall Decrees and the Rights of the Church may be restored and Christian Religion Reformed And in the Synod of Arles held under the said Emperour they begin the Synod with a solemne prayer for the Emperour The Lord of all things establish in the Conservation of his Faith our Most Serene and religious Lord the Emperour Charles by whose Command wee are here congregated And they conclude the Synod with a submission to him These things which wee judged worthy to be amended wee have briefly noted and decreed them to be presented to our Lord the Emperour beseeching his Clemency that if any thing be here waâ—tinâ— it may be supplied by his Prudence if any thing be amisse it may be amended by his Iudgement if any thing be reasonably taxed it may be perfected by his help through the assistance of the Divine Clemency So the Councell of Toures begin their Synodicall Acts That which was enjoined us by so great a Prince we accomplished in meeting at the time and place appointed Where being congregated wee noted such things by Chapters as needed to be amended according to the Canonicall Rule to be shewed to our most serene Emperour So they conclude their Acts These things wee have ventilated in our Assembly but how our most pious Prince will be pleased to Dispose of them wee his faithfull servants are ready at his beck and pleasure with a willing mind Lastly the Synod called Synodus Cabilonensis in the dayes of the said Emperour beginneth thus Our Lord Iesus Christ assisting us and the most renowned Emperour Charles commanding us c. We have noted out certain Chapters wherein reformation seemed necessary to us which are hereafter inserted to be presented to our said Lord the Emperour and referred to his most sacred Iudgement to be confirmed by his prudeÌ„t examination of those things which wee have reasonably decreed and wherein wee have been defective to be supplied by his Wisdome So they conclude We have ventilated these things in our Assembly but how it shall please our most pions Prince to dispose of them we his fathfull servants with a willing mind are ready at his beck and pleasure One Egge is not liker to another then these Synodicall Representations are to our old English Customes Yet these were Catholick times when Kings convocated Synods of their own Subjects and either confirmed or rejected their Acts as they thought meete for the publick good aud did give the Popes own Legate his power of presiding in them by their Constitutions who joined with the rest in these Synodicall Acts. I proceed to the third Branch of the Popes first usurpation concerning the tying of English Prelates by Oath to a new Allegiance to the Pope No man can serve two supreme Masters where there is a possibility of clashing one with another It is true one is but a Politicall Soveraign and the other pretendeth but a Spirituall Monarchy Yet if this supposed Spirituall Monarch shall challenge either a direct power and Iurisdiction over the Temporall in the exteriour Court as Pope Boniface did Nos nos imperia regna principaâ—us quicquid habere mortales possunt auferre dare posse Wee even Wee have power to take away and give Empires Kingdomes Principalities and what soever morâ—all men are capable of Or challenge an indirect power to dispose of all temporall things in order to spirituall good which is the opinion of Bellarmine and his party Or lastly shall declare those things to be purely spirituall which are truly Politicall as the Patronage of Churches and all Coactive power in the exteriour Court of the Church In all such cases the subject must desert the one or the other and either suffer justly as a Traitour to his Prince or be subjected unjustly to the Censures of the Church and be made as an Heathen or Publicane This is a sad case But this is not all If this poore subject shall be further perswaded that his Spirituall Prince hath Authority to absolve him from all Sinnes Lawes Oaths knowing that his temporall Prince doth challenge no such extravagant power what Emperour or King can have any assurance of the Fidelity of his own naturall subjects It is true a Clerk may sweare allegiance to his King and Canonicall obediente to his Bishop but the cases are not like No Canonicall obedience either is or can be in consistent with true allegiance The law full Canons oblige without an Oath And all that Coactive power which a Bishop hath is derived from the Prince and Subjected to the Prince The question then is not whether a Pastor may enjoine his Flock to abstaine from an unjust oath An oath of allegiance to a naturall Prince is justifiable both before God aÌ„d man Nor yet whether the Clergy have immunities orought to enjoy immunities such as reÌ„der them more capable of serving God alwayes the first Article in our Great Charter of England Let the Churâ—h injoy her Immunities The question is not whether Clergy men transgressing of the Canons ought to be tryed by Canonicall Iudges according to the Canons especially in the first instance For by the Law of England the Delinquent was alwayes allowed the liberty to appeale to Caesar. But the question is whether the Pope by any Act or decree of his can acquit English Subjects or prohibit them to do homage aud sweare Allegiance to their King according to the Ancient Lawes of the Realme because they are Clergymen And can Command them whether the King will or not to take a new Oath never heard of or practised formerly An Oath of Allegiance aud Obedience to himself So it is called expresly in the Edition of Gregory the thirteenth Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apostolica Pallium non tradet nisi prius praestet fidelitatis Obedientiae Iuramentum The Apostolicall See will not deliver the Pall to an Archbishop elect unlesse he first take aâ— Oath of Fidelity aud Obedience Wee have seen already how Henry the First was quietly seised aud possessed of the Homage of his Prelates aud their Oaths of and their Oaths of Fidelity and his Predecessors before him So wee have heard Platina confessing that before the Popedome of Paschalis the second the Homage and Feudall Oaths of Bishops were performed to Lay Men that is to Kings not Popes Thus much Eadmerus and Nauclerus and William of Malmesbury and Hoveden and Iorvalensis doe all assure us This agreeth sweetly not onely with the Ancient Law of Feuds from whence they borrowed the name of Investitures but also is confirmed by the decrees of ancient Councels as diverse Toletan Councells and that of Aquisgrane which who so desireth to see may find
deposited at Rome as a stock for defence against the Turk and no otherwise But the time is effluxed since and the Princes have learned by Experience that the moneys have not been imployed againsâ— the Turkes but converted to other Vses c. The Emperour Charles the fifth was not of the same mind as appeareth by his Letter to Pope Adrian the sixth where in he reciteth the same fraud and requireth that the Tenths may be detained in Germany for that Vse for which they were first intended Lastly Henry the eighth and the Church and Kingdome of England were not of that mind nor intended to indure such an egregious cheat any longer so extremely contrary to the Fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and destructive to them By which Lawes the King himself who onely hath Legislative power in England may not compell his Subjects to pay any such Pensions without the Good will and Assent of the Arch-Bishops Bishops Earls Barons Knights Burgesses and other Freemen of the land Much lesse can a forrain Prince or Praelate whatsoever he be impose any such payments by his own Authority This is that which is so often Condemned in our Statutes of Provisors Namely the imposing Pensions and exporting the Treasure of the Realme The Court of Rome is so far from any Pretense of Reparation that if their Predecessors were living they were obliged to make restitution These are all the Differences that are between us concerning the Patronage of the Church of EnglaÌ„d Yet now least he should urge that these Lawes alledged by mee are singular obsolete Lawes not Consonant to the Lawes of other Christian Kingdomes I will Paralell them with the Lawes and Liberties of France which he him self acknowledgeth to be a Catholick Country as they are recorded in two Authentick Bookes One of the Rights and Libertyes of the Gallican Church The Other The Defence of the Court of Paris for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Roman Court both printed by Authority First for the Patronage of the Church The fourth Liberty is The King hath power to Assemble or cause to be Assembled Synods Provinciall or Nationall and therein to treat of such things as concern Ecclesiasticall Order The seventh Liberty is The Prelates of the French Church although commanded by the Pope for what cause so ever it be may not depart out of the Kingdome without the Kings Commandement aâ—d License The eleventh Liberty is The Pope cannot impose Pensions in France upon any Benifices having Cure of Soules Nor upon any other but according to the Canons c. The Fourteenth Liberty is Ecclesiasticall persons may be Convented Iudged and sentenced before a secular Iudge for the First enormious Crime or for lesser offences after a relapse The fifteenth Liberty is All the Prelatest of France are obliged to swear Fealty to the King and to receive from him their Investitures for their Fees and Manours The nineteenth Liberty is Provisions Reservaâ—ioÌ„s expectative graces have no place in FraÌ„ce This is the brief summe of those Liberties which concern the Patronage of the Gallican Church agreeing perfectly with our old English Customes I shall shew him the same perfect Harmony between their Church Liberties and our English Customes the Assise of Clarendon the Statutes of Provisors and Premunire through out Either Mr. Serjeant must make the Gallican Church Schismaticall which he dare not doe and if I conjecture rightly hath no mind to doe or he must acknowledge our English Lawes to be good Catholick Lawes for Company Sect. I. Cap. VI. The next Vsurpation which offereth it self to our Consideration is the Popes Legislative power ouer the Church and Kingdome of England either in his person or by his Legates For the clearer understanding whereof the Reader in the first place may be pleased to take notice that we receive the ancient Canons of the Catholick church and honour them more then the Romanists themselves as being selected ouâ— of the Canons of Primitive Councells before the Roman Bishops did challenge any plenitude of Legislative power in the Church And especially of the first four General Councells of which King Iames said most truly that Publica Ordinum nostrorum Sanctione recâ—pta sunt They are received into our Lawes We acknowledge that just Canons of Councells lawfully Congregated and lawfully proceeding have power to bind the Conscience of Subjects as much as Politicall Lawes in themselves not from themselves as being humane lawes but from the Ordinance of God who commandeth Obedience of Subjects to all sorts of Superiours We receive the Canons of other Primitive Councells but not with the same degree of Reverence as wee doe the first four generall Councells No more did S. Gregory of old No more doth the Pope now in his solemne Profession of his Faith at his election to the Papacy according to the decree of the Councell of Constance That which restrained them restraineth us I am more troubled to thinke how the Pope should take himself to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch and yet take such a solemne Oath In the Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost to keep the Faitâ— of the Councell of Chalcedon to the least Tittle What the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon was in this greate Controversy about the Papacy may appeare by the six teenth Session and the Acclamation of the Fathers to the Sentence of the Iudges Haec justa Sententia haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent c. This is a just Sentence These things wee all say These things please us all c Secondly we acknowledge that Bishops were alwayes esteemed the proper judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution that to make them Lawes the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needfull The former part of this caution is evident in Iustinians confirmation of the fifth Generall Synod Haec pro communi Pace Ecclesiarum Sanctissimarum statuimus haec sententiavimus sequentes Sanctorum PatruÌ„ dogmata c. These things wee ordaine these things wee have sentenced following the opinion of the Holy Fathers c. Quae Sacerdotio visa sunt ab Imperio confirmata Which were approved by the Clergy and confirmed by the Emperour The second part of the caution is evident out of the Lawes of William the conquerour Qui decimam deâ—inuerit per justitiaÌ„ Episcopi Regis si necesse fueriâ— ad soluttioneÌ„ arguatur c. Who shall detain his Tythe Let him be convinced to pay it by the justice of the Bishop and if it be needfull of the King For these things S. Austin preached and taught and these things that is both Tythes and jurisdictioÌ„ were granted froÌ„ the King the Barons and the People So hitherto there is no difference betweeÌ„ us they acknowledge that the King
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
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
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
his First Governourship are but generall unsignificant Termes which may agree as well to a beginning of Vnity or Primacy of Order as to an absolute Monarchy or plenitude of power If he will say any thing to purpose he must say it particularly particulars began the breach particulars must stop rhe breach I have given him an account what particular Differences we have with him concerning St. Peter what particular Differences we have with him concerning the Pope let him apply him self to those aud not make continuall Excursions as he doth out of the Lists When I acknowledged an Authority due to the Roman Bishop in the Church as a Bishop in his Diocesse as a Metropolitan in his Province as the Bishop of an Apostolicall See and Successour of St. Peter I expected thaÌ„kes there are many that will not yield him one inch of all these steps without a new conflict But behold the evill natures or evill manners of this Age I am accused for this of frivolousnesse and insincerity Yet I will make bold to tell this Apprentice in Theology that whensoever the case commeth to be solidly discussed it will be found that the principall grounds if I had said the onely grounds I had not said much amisse of the Popes pretended Monarchy are the just rights and Privileges of his Patriarchateship his Protopatriarchateship and his Apostolicall Chaire mistaken for Royalties for want of good Distinction I know the Court of Rome who have been accustomed in these latter times to milke the purses of their Clients doe not love such a dry Primacy as he phraseth it but where they have no more right and other Churches have a care to preserve their own Privileges they must have patience perforce His Parallel between the King of England and the Pope will be then to some purpose when he hath first proved that the Pope hath a Monarchy untill then it is a mere begging of the Question what a grosse Solecisme that is in Logick he cannot chuse but know But since he is favourably pleased to dispense with all men for the extent of Papall power so they believe the Substance of it and yet he himself either cannot or dare not determin what the Substance of Papall power is he might out of his Charity have compassion and not stile us Mountebankes who know no difference between Roman Catholiks and our selves about the Papacy but onely about the extent of Papall power Although he stile us hereticks now yet he was lately one of us himself and would have continued so longer if he had understood himself better or the times bene less Clowdy Let him call it Substance let him call it extent let him call it what he will I have given him our Exceptions to their Papacy let him satisfy them as well as he â—an and let truth prevaile We have not â—enounced the substance of the Papacy exâ—ept the substance the Papacy doe consist â—n Coactive power I side with no parties â—ut honour the Church of England and welcome truth wheresoever I meet it Tros Tyriusve mihi nullo discrimine habetur He telleth his Reader that I grant the whole question where I affirm that the Bishop of Rome had Authority all over as the Bishop of â—n Apostolicall Church or Successor of St. Peter Much good may it doe him As if every Bishop of an Apostolicall Church were straight way an universall Monarch or as if Authority did alwaies necessarily imply jurisdiction or every Arbitrator or Depositary were a legall judge I had reasoÌ„ to place a Bishop of an Apostolicall Church in my Climax after a Patriarch for the larger extension of his Authority every where not for the higher intension of his jurisdiction any where I urged that if the Bishop of Rome did succeed St. Peter by the ordinance of Christ in this Privilege to be the Prince and Soveraign of the Church endowed with a single Soveraignty of power that the Great Councell of Chalcedon was much to be blamed to give equall Privileges to the Patriarch af Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome and to esteem the Imperiall City more then the Ordination of Christ. To the second part of this Argument that the great Councell of Chalcedon did ground the Advancement both of Rome and Constantinople upon the Imperiall Dignity of those two Cities and to much more which is urged there against him he is as mute as a Fish but to the former part he answereth that for any thing I know to the Contrary Rome might remain superiour in Iurisdiction though they had equall Privileges Very pretty indeed He would have his Readers to believe that a Soveraign and his Subjects have equall Privileges Equalls have no power one over another there may be a Primacy of Order among Equalls but Supremacy of power taketh away Equality Doth not he himself make it to be S. Peters Privilege to be Prince of the Apostles And doth not he tell us that this Privilege descended from S. Peter upon the Bishop of Rome Then if the Bishop of Constantinople have equall Privileges with the Bishop of Rome he is equall to him in this Privilege which descended froÌ„ S. Peter Let him listen to the eight and twentieth Canon of that Councell where having repeated and confirmed the decree of the Generall Councell of Constantinople to the same purpose they conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City And the hundred and fifty Godly Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople moved with the same consideration did give equall Privileges to the See of new Rome Rightly judging that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equall Privileges with the ancient Imperiall City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiasticall affaires as well as it being the second in Order from it And in the last sentence of the Iudges upon the Review of of the Cause The Archbishop of the Imperiall City of Constantinople or new Rome must enjoy the same Privileges of honour and have the same power out of his own Authority to ordain MetropolitaÌ„s in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocesses That is as much in Law as to say have equall Iurisdiction for all other rights doe follow the right of Ordination But he knoweth right well that this will not serve his turn his last refuge is to deny the Authority of the Canon telling us that it was no free Act but voted tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed And miscalling it a Bastard issue pinned to the end of the Councell Which is altogether as false as any thing can be imagined to be It was done before the Bishops had their License to depart It had a secâ—nd hearing and was debated by the Popes own Legates on his behalf before the most glorious judges and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Councell This was one of those four
Apostolicall Bishop and his Primacy of Order so loÌ„g as the Church thought fit to continue it to that See if this would content him To my third reason he excepteth If Monarchy be of Divine Institution the Venetians and the Hollanders are in a sad case I am glad when I find any thing in him that hath but a resemblance of matter more then wind and empty words although they weigh nothing when they come to be examined The Venetians and Hollanders may be in a sad Condition in the Opinion of such rash Censurers as himself is who have learned their Theology and Politicks but by the halues Who taught him to argue from the Position of one lawfull forme of Government to the Deniall of another All lawfull Formes of Government are warranted by the Law of Nature and so have their Institution from God in the Law of Nature The Powers that be are ordained of God whether they be Monarchicall or Aristocraticall or Democraticall Man prepareth the Body God infuseth the Soule of Power which is the same in all Lawfull Formes But though all lawfull Formes of GovernmeÌ„t be warranted by the law of nature yet not all in the same Degree of Eminency There is but one soule in the body one Sun in the heaven one Maister in a Family and anciently one Monarch in each Society all the first Governours were Kings The soule of Soveraign Power is the same in all Formes but the Organ is more apt to attain its end in one Form then another in Monarchy then in Aristocracy or Democracy And we say God and Nature doe alwaies intend that which is best Thus it is in the Law of Nature which is warrant sufficient for any form of Government but in the Positive Law of God he never instituted or authorised any form but Monarchy In the last Paragraph where I say that the Popes Headship of Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution he excepteth that it is my bare saying and my old â—rick to say over againe the very point in dispute between us If this be the very point in dispute beâ—ween us as it is indeed it is more shame for him who letteth the very point in dispute alone and never offereth to come neare it especially having made such lowd bragges that he would charge the Crime of Schisme upon the Church of England with undeniable Evidence and prove the Popes Headship of Iurisdiction or Power by a more ample cleare and continued Title then any right of Law or Humane Ordinances can offer Quid tanto dignum tulit hic promiss or hiaâ—u As for my part I know my Obligation whilest I am upon the defensive to make good my ground and when it is my turn to assault I shall discharge my duty If he have any thing to say to the Huguenots of France they are at age to answer him themselves Our Controversy is onely concerning the Church of England SECT 6. That the King and Church of England had sufficieÌ„t grounds to seperate from the Court of Rome I had reason to wonder not at our Grounds but their sileÌ„ce that having so long so ofteÌ„ called for our grounds of Seperation and charged us that we have no grounds that we could have no grounds now when sufficient Grounds are offered to them two of them one after another should passe by them in deep silence And this Dispatcher being called upon for an answer unlesse he would have the cause sentenced against him upon a Nihil dicit with more haâ—â— then good speed gives us an answer and no Answer like the Title of an empty Apothecaries Box. If there be any Monster the Reader may looke for it on that side not on our side He may promise the View of a strange Monster in his Antepasts and Postpasts and blow his Trumpet to get pence a piece to see it as he phraseth it but if the Readers expect till he shew them any such rare sight they may wait untill Dooms day and all the remedy he offers them is to say he hath abused them as he doth often Now roome for his Case or his two Principles of Vnity which are evermore called in to help at a dead lift But his case is not the true case and his Rules are leaden Rules they might be streighâ— at the beginning but they have bended them according to their self Interest Both his case and his Principles have been sufficiently discussed and fully cleared so that I will not offend the Reader with his sleight dish of Coleworts sodden over and over againe He is angry that I make our seperation to be rather from the Court of Rome then from the Churcâ— of Rome and stileth it perfect Impudence So my Assertion be evidently true I weigh not his groundlesse Calumnies Let any man looke upon our GrievaÌ„ces and the Grounds of our Reformation 1. the intollerable extortion of the Roman Court 2. the unjust Vsurpations of the Roman Court 3. the malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body politick 4. the like malignant influence of the Roman Court upon the body Ecclesiastick 5. and lastly the Violation of ancient Liberties and Exemtions by the Roman Court and he can not doubt from whence we made our Separation All our sufferings were from the Roman Court then why should we seek for ease but where our Shoe did wring us And as our GrievaÌ„ces so our ReformatioÌ„ was onely of the Abuses of the Roman Court Their bestowing of prelacies and dignities in England to the prejudice of the right patrons Their Convocating Synods in England without the Kings leave Their prohibiting English Prelates to make their old Feâ—dall Oaths to the King and obliging them to take new Oaths of Fidelity to the Pope Their imposing and receiving Tenths and First fruits and other arbitrary Pensions upon the English Clergy And lastly their usurping a Legislative Iudiciary and Dispensative Power in the exteriour Court by Politicall Coaction These are all the Branches of Papall power which we have rejected This Reformation is all the Separation that we have made in point of Discipline And for Doctrine we have no Difference with them about the old Essentialls of Christian Religion And their new Essentialls which they have patched to the Creed are but their erroneous or at the best probable Opinions no Articles of Faith He is still bragging of his Demonstrations yet they are but blind Enthymematicall Paralogismes wherein he maketh sure to set his best legge formost and to conceale the lamenesse of his Discourse as much as he can from the eyes of the Reader and still calling upon us for rigorous Demonstration I wish we knew whether he understaÌ„d what rigorous Demonstration is in Logick for no other Demonstration is rigorous but that which proceedeth according to the strict Rules of Logick either a priore or a posteriore from the cause or the effect And this Cause in Difference between us whether those Branches of power which the Pope claimeth and we have
Councell then there will need no turning out Secondly he objecteth So a man may reject all Government of the Church the Procession of the Holy ghost all the Sacraments all the Scriptures and yet continue a Member of Gods Church Why so When I said the Creed was a â—ufficient Rule of Faith or Credendorum of things to be believed I neither said nor meant that it was regula agendorum a Rule of such things as are to be practised such as the Acts of discipline and of the Sacraments are The Creed conteined enough for Salvation touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost before the words Filioque were added to it and there is great cause to doubt that the Contentions of the Eastern and Western Churches about this Subject are but a meer Logomachy or strife about words The Scriptures and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith but one and the same Rule dilated in the Scripture contracted in the Creed the end of the Creed being to contein all Fundamentall points of Faith or a summary of all things necessary to Salvation to be believed Necessitate medii But in what particulaâ— writings all these fundamentall points are conteined is no particular fundamentall Article it self nor conteined in the Creed nor could be conteined in it since it is apparent out of Scripture it self that the Creed was made and deposited with the Church as a Rule of Faith before the Canon of the new Testament was fully perfected Arrians and Socinians may perhaps wrest the words of the Apostles Creed to their Hereticall Sense but not as it is explained by the first foure Generall Councells which all Orthodox Christians doe admit He saith they and we differ about the sense of two Articles of the Creed that is the descent of Christ into Hell and the Catholick Church but setteth not down wherein we differ He hath reason to understand our Differences having been of both Churches but I for my part do rather believe that he understandeth neither part right Howsoever it be the Different Sense of an Article doth make an Heretick after it is defined by the Vniversall Church not before He saith he hath already shewed in the foregoing Section that the Protestant Grounds have left no Order and Subordination of Vniversall Government in Gods Church But he hath neither shewn it in the foregoing Section nor any where else nor is able to shew it We have the same subordination that the Primitive Church of Inferiour Clergy men to Bishops of Bishops to Archbishops of Archbishops to Patriarchs and of Patriarchs to a Generall Councell or as Generall as may be Let him shew any one linke of this Subordination that we have weakened I said we acknowledge not a Virtuall Church or one man as infallible as the Vniversall Church He rejoineth Nor they neither I wish it were so Generally but the Pope and Court of Rome who have the power of the Keys in their hands whoÌ„ onely we accuse in this behalf do maintain the Contrary that a Generall Councell without the Pope may erre that the Pope with any Councell Generall or particular cannot erre that the infallibility of the Church is radicated in the Pope by virtue of Christs prayer for S. Peter that his faith should not faile not in a company of Counsailers nor in a Councell of Bishops that the Pope cannot define temerariously in matters of Faith or good manners which concern the whole Church What a Generall Councell is and what the Vniversall Church is and who ought to be excluded from the one or the other as Hereticks I have shewed already namely all those and onely those who doe either renounce their Creed the badge of their Christianity the same Faith whereinto they were baptised or who differing about the sense of any Article thereof have already been excluded as Hereticks by the sentence of an undoubted Generall Councell Howsoever he sleighteth the Controversies which they have among themselves concerning the last resolution of Faith as if they were of no moment yet they are not of so little concernment to be so sleighted What availeth it to say they have the Church for an infallible Iudge whilest they are not certain or do not know what the Church is or who this infallible Iudge is May not a Man say unto them as Elijah said unto the Israelites Why halt ye between two Opinions Or rather why halt yet betwixt five or six Opinions If the Pope alone be infallible Iudge follow him If a Generall Councell alone be this infallible Iudge follow it If the Essentiall Church be the infallible Iudge Adhere to it If the Pope and a Generall Councell oâ— the Pope and a particular Councell or the Pope and his Conclave of Cardinalls be this infallible Iudge follow them He telleth us that their Vniversall Church is as Visible as the sun at Noone day to wit those Countryes in Communion with the See of Rome Without doubt they are Visible enough but it is as Visible that they are not the Vniversall Church What shall become of all the rest of the Christian world They are the elder Christians and more numerous fower for one both Patriarchs and people It is against reason that one single Protopatriarch should cast out fower out of the Church and be both party and Iudge in his own Cause But here it ends not If the Pope will have his Visible Church to be one Homogeneous body he must cast out a great many more yet and it is to be suspected this very Dispatcher himself among the rest for all his shewes They flatter the Pope with Generall Terms of Head and Chief Governour and First Mover which signify nothing but in reality they would have the Pope to be no more then the Duke of Venice is in the Venetian Common wealth that is lesse then any single Senatour Or that which a Generall Maister is in a Religious Order Above all Priours and Provincialls but subject to a Congregation Generall Wherein doe these men differ from us Sect. 8. That all Princes â—nd Republiques of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same thing whicâ— Henry the eighth did when they have Occasion or at least doe plead for it This was the Title and this was my scope of my Fifth ground which I made good by the Lawes and decrees of the Emperours with their Councells and Synods and Electorall College by the Lawes of France the Liberties of the Gallican Church the Acts of their Parliaments and declarations of their Vniversities By the practise of the King of Spain his Councells his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders By the sighs of Portugall and their bleaâ—ings and the Iudgement of the Vniversity of Lisbone By the Lawes and Proclamations of the Republick of Venice This I made good in every particular branch of Papall power which we have cast out of England the Patronage of the English Church The right to call and confirm Synods to conferre Bishopricks to
Order not a supremacy of power They made him a beginning of Vnity to all particular Churches Yet subjected him to the Vniversall Church They looked upon him as Highest Bishop and Successour of St. Peter but they believed that a Generall Councell had power to shake his Candlestick and remove it if they found it expedient for the good of Christendome If he come so far short of divine right in his faire pretensions by what right will he seek to justify all his foule Vsurpations and enchroachments which have no decree of any Oecumenicall councell to warrant them no Imperiall Institntion to authorise them which have no foundation but the Popes own decretalls But â— reserve a full account of this for the next part of my Answer Onely Reader be pleased to take notice that it behooved Mr. Serjeant to have proved his Traditions clearly and distinctly as to those parts of Papall power which are controverted between us in earnest with the Vniversality of it and the perpetuity of it This he neither doth nor attempteth to doe nor in deed is he or any other able to doe but meerly presumeth it and slubbereth over the mater in deceitfull Generalls Sect. I. Cap. III. Wee are come now to the last part of his demonstration which was the Minor or Assumtion of his former Syllogisme That the Church of England in Henry the eighths dayes did breake these Rules of Vnity upon probable reasons not convincing grounds Which being the main question he should have fortifyed with proofes but he according to his Custome thinkes to carry it with confidence and clamours Does not all the World grant and hold that King Henry denyed the Popes Supremacy Does not all the World see that the pretended Church of England stands now otherwise in Order to the Church of Rome then it did in Henry the sevenths dayes c. Was Papall power cast out before was it not in actuall force till and at that time Wee beg nothing gratis but begin our Processe upon Truth acknowledged by the whole World What Papall power king Henry did cast out and what Papall power we hold out I shall demonstrate to the World not confusedly but distinctly by such proofes as are not to be gainsaid for matter of fact But before I gird my self to the worke it will not be amisse for the freeing of the Cause from future Cumber about them to give Satisfaction to his two Circumstances that wee did it onely upon probable reasons And in the dayes of king Henry the eighth For the first he keepeth a great stirre and bustling every where about our probable reasons and tbe nature of our Exceptions And he would make his reader believe that I have omitted this part of his wordâ— Guâ—lefully All which discourse is superfluous and impertinent For if he could make good his Conclusion that wee have cast out that which Christ himself did ordein in holy Scripture no reasons nor exceptions can be sufficient or so demonstrative and convincing as to justify a wilfull violation of Christs own ordination Every Plant saith our Saviour which my heavenly father hath not planted shall be rooâ—ed up But if this be Christs own Plant which he himself hath planted to goe about to root it up were plainly to fight against God We renounce all reasons and all exceptions against Christs own ordination His very intimation that wee might doe what we did upon demonstrative reasons is an implicit Confession that it was not against Christs own ordination There was no need why I should meddle wich mine own exceptions here That was his office in the position of the Case That case is meanly and partially stated which is stated but on one side he ought to have included my Exceptions in his case Besides I was sure to meet wich my exceptions in every Section and therefore reserved them for their proper-places as being loath to offend the Reader wich twice sodden Coleworts But let him not feare that I will relinquish my Exceptions I shall maintain them to be demonstrative of the Popes Vsurpations in England and leave them freely to try it out with his Demonstrations The second Circumstance is concerning the time when the breach is supposed to have been made In the dayes of Henry the eighth And it is thus far true that then the breach was declared and the War proclaimed to all the World but this breach was making long before Henry the eighth was born form the dayes of Pope Hildebrand for about four hundred yeares There was no open hostility indeed between the Court of Rome and the Church and Kingdome of England but they were still upon their Gards and still seeking to gaine ground one upon another as appeareth by the decrees and Lawes and Machinations of those times A breach in a strong Tower is long making before the Walls tumble visibly down A Scathfire is long kindling before it breake out in an universall flame A Cronicall disease is long gathering and forming before the certain Symptoms there of doe appeare We use to say the second blow makes the fray but the first blow makes the Battery and the guilt All that time that they were forcing their grosse usurpations upon us the Breach was making I have done wich his two Circumstances The Substance of his Assumtion remaineth But before I grapple with him about that give me leave to lay down four grounds or Considerations so indifferent that no rationall man can deny them The first is that every one who is involved materially in a Schism is not a formall Schismatick no more then â—hee that marrieth after long expectation believing and having reason to believe that her former Husband was dead is a formall Adultresse or then he who is drawn to give divine Worship to a creature by some misapprehension yet addressing his devotions to the true God is a formall Idolater A man may be Baptisatus voto as S. Ambrose said baptised in his desire and God Almighty doth accept it why may he not as wel Communicate in his desire and be accepted with God likewise If S. Austin say true of Heresy that He who did not run into his Errour out of his own overweening presumption nor defends it pertinaciâ—asly but received it from his seduced parents and is carefull to search out the truth and ready to be corrected if he find it out he is not to be reputed among Hereticks It is much more true of Schism that he who is involved in Schism through the errour of his Parents or Predecessors who seeketh carefully for the Truth and is prepared in his mind to embrace it whensoever he finds it he is not to be reputed a Schismatick This very Bond of Vnity and preparation of his mind to peace is an implicit â—enunciation and abjuration of his Schism before God This is as comfortable a ground for ignorant Roman Catholicks as for any persons that I know Who are hurried hoodwinked in to
erroneous tenets as necessary points of faith and Schismaticall Practises meerly by the authority and to uphold the interest and ambitions or aâ—aricious courses of the Roman Court. My second ground is this God almighty dothâ— not approve of that unequall proverb The Fathers have eaten sowre Grapes and the Childrens teeth are set on edge Posterity is not guilty of their Ancestours transgressions further then they doe either imitate them or maintain them Suppose these calumnies had been truths which some have belched forth against our Reformers that they had Sacrilegious or other sinister ends it signifieth nothing to us so long as wee neither justify them nor imitate them Iehues heart was not over upright and yet God himself approved his Reformation Suppose any of our Reformers have run into any excesses or extremes either in their expressions or perhaps in their actions it is a difficult thing in great changes to observe a just meane it may be out of humane frailty as Lycurgus out of hatred to drunkennesâ—e cut down all the Vines about Sparia or it may be out of Policy as men use to bend a crooked Rod as much the contrary way to make it streight or as expert Masters in Musick doe sometimes draw up their Scholars a note too high to bring them to a just tone What is that to us so long as we practise the meane and maintain the mean and guide our selves by the certain line and Levell of Apostolicall and primitive Tradition Charity commands us to thinke well of our Predecessors and Theology to look well to our selves Thirdly that difference which divines doe make between affirmative and negative precepts that affirmative bind alwayes but not to all times semper but not ad semper A man is bound alwayes to pray but is not hound to the actuall exercise of praier at all timts but neganegative precepts bind both semper and ad semper The same I say of affirmative aud negative presidents affirmative presidents prove alwayes that such a fact was done and it may be that it was justly done at that time in that case but they prove not a right ad semper to doe it at all times The reason is evident Particular Acts may be done by Connivence or by speciall License but a Generall Prohibition implyeth a perpetual right As for instance I produce Negative Presidents both Generall Lawes against all appeales to Rome that no man may appeale to the Pope without the Kings License and Particular Prohibitions out of the Kings Courts by form of ordinary Iustice against such and such Appeales or such and such Sentences upon Appeales This argueth a perpetuall Right to forbid Appeales whensoever it is Iudged expedient On the otherside he preduceth Presidents of Particular Appeales to Rome which he may doe of later Dayes but for the First eleven hundred years it was not so This Proveth onely the Kings License or Connivence in such cases it doth not prove a perpetuall Right because two perpetuall Rights contradictory one to another can not be My fourth and last ground is that neither King Henry the eighth nor any of our Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the Keys or any part thereof either the Key Order or the Key of Iurisdiction I mean jurisdictioÌ„ purelâ— spiritual which hath place onely in the Inner court of conscience and over such persons as submit willingâ—y Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume unto them selves either the Key of order or the key of jurisdiction purely Spirituall All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the externall Regiment of the Church by Coactive power to be excercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had ot could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose subjects they were And there fore when wee meet with these words or the like that no forrein Prelate shall exercise any manner of power Iurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or Privilege Ecclesiasâ—icall or Spirituall within this Realme It is not to be understood of internall or purely Spiritual power in the court of conscience or the power of the Keys Wee see the Contrary practised every day but of external and coactive power in Ecclesiasticall causes in foro contenâ—ioso And that it is and ought to be so understood I prove clearly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and a Canon of the English Church First the Proviso is conteined in the Act for the Exoneration of the Kings Subjects from all Exactions and Impositions paid to the See of Rome Provided alwayes this Act nor any thing therein conteined shall be here after interpreâ—ed or expounded that your Grace your nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and Vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture and the Word of God necessary for your and their Salvations but onely to make an Ordinance by Pollicies necessary and convenient to represse Vice aud for good Conservation of this Realm in Peace Vnity and Tranquility from ravine and Spoile insueing much the old ancient Customes of this Realme in that behalfe They profesâ—e their Ordinance is meerly Politicall What hath a Politicall Ordinance to doe with power purely Spirituall They seek onely to preserve the kingdome from ravine and Spoile Power purely spirituall can commit no Ravin or Spoile â—heâ— follow ancient Customes of the Realm There was no ancient Custome of the Realm for abolition or translation of power purely spirituall They professe all Conformity to Holy Scriptures but the power of the keys was evidently given by Christ in Scripture to his Apostles and their Successors not to Soveraign Princes If any thing had been conteined in this Law for the Abolition or Translation of power meerly and purely Spirituall it had been retracted by this Proviso at the same time it was enacted The Canon is the 37. Canon where we give the Kings Majesty the Supreme Government Wee doe not give our Kings either the Administration of Gods word or Sacraments which the Injunctions published lately by Queen Elisabeth doe most evidently declare but onely that Prerogative which wee see to have been alwayes attributed to all Godly Princes by him self in holy Scripture That is to preserve or contein all Estates and Orders committed to their trust by God whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Civill in their Dutyes and restrein contumacious Offenders with the Civill Sword You see the Power is Politicall the Sword is Politicall all is Politicall Our Kings leave the power of the keys and Iurisdiction purely Spirituall to those to whom Christ hath lest it Sect. I. Cap. IV. And now having dispatched the Circumstances out of my way and laid down some Necessary grounds I come directly to the Substance of his Assumption and
after Eleuen hundred years were eâ—â—luxed a strange time to set up a divine right Gregory the seventh otherwise called Pope Hildebrand and after him Pope Calixtus did condemne all Investitures taken from a Lay hand aud prohibit the Arch Bishops to cousecrate any persons so invested Praesens audivi in Romano Concilio prohiberi saith Anselm I heard it with mine own eares prohibited in the Roman Court But what were their reasons I believe not overrigorous Demonstrations The first was frequent suspicion of Simony An unheard of piece of Iustice to take away an hereditary right for suspicion of a personall fault The second and third reasons are contained in the letter of Adrian the fourth to Frederick the first Apud Goldast Ab his qui Dii sunt filii excelsi omnes homagium requiâ—is Fidelitatem exigis manus eorum sacratas manibus tuis innectis Thou requirest homage of those who are Gods and all the Children of the most High thou exactest an Oath of Fidelity and knittest their sacred hands with in thy hands A strange presumtion in a Soveraign Prince if you marke it well to hold his subjects hands within his Hands whilest he was swearing his Allegiance But the maine exception was the Homage or Oath of Fidelity it self And was it not high time thinke you to except against their swearing of Fidelity to their Native Prince whom the Bishops of Rome intended to exempt from his Iurisdiction aud to make them turn Subjects to themselves as they did in a great part effect it very shortly after Then was the time where of Platina speaks that there was great Consultation about the Homage and Fealty and Oaths of Bishops which in former times were sworn to lay men Were they so indeed Here is an ingenuous Confession of the Popes own Library Keeper Indeed at the first whilest they were robbing the King of the Iewells of his Crown they preached up nothing but free Elections but after they had onte seised their prey they changed their once forthwith to Dei Apostolicae Sedis Graria By the Grace of God and the Apostolique See Or ex plenitudine Ecclefiasticae potestatis out of the Fulnesse of our Ecclesiasticall power And when this Bell had rung out a while Egypt never a bounded more with Caterpillars then our Native Country did with Provisions and reservations and Pensions with all theÌ„hellish arts of Sublimated Simony Then our best dignityes and Benefices were filled with Strangers who could not speak an English word nor did ever tread upon English ground dayly more and more untill these well chosen Pastors who knew how to sheare their Flocks though they did not know how to feed them received yearly out of the Kingdome more theu the revenues of the crown He were very simple who should thinke the Court of Rome did not lick their own Fingers There remaineth but one thing to be done to stick the Guilt of this intolerable Vsurpation undeniably upon the See of Rome that is to sâ—ew that the Investiture of Bishops was the undoubted right of the Crown This is as cleare as the Sun both in our most Authentick Historiographers and records if I had the meanes to producetheÌ„ and also in our ancient Lawes published long since to the world in print and these not enactive of new law but declarative of the fundamentall law of the land First for our Histories Gervasius Dorobernensis relateth that Lanfrank desired of William the conquerer the Patronage of the Abby of S. Austin but the King answered Se velle omnes baculos pastorales in manu tenere That he would keep all the Crosier staffes that is the Investitures in his own hand The same is testified Anselm himself by one whose Authority cannot be doubted of He Anselm after the manner and Example of his Predecessor was inducted according to the Custome of the Land and did Homage to the King homo Regis factus est as Lanfranke his Predecessor in the Archbishoprick of Canterbury in his time had done And the manner of his Investiture is related how the Bishops pulled him and haled him as it were by violence to the Kings bedside William Rufus where he lay sick and helped to thrust the Crosier staffe by force into his hand Yet all that time though Anselm had many other Pretenses he had no exception against Investiture by a Lay hand but shortly after it grew to such an height and Anselm was the chief Stickler in it that William the Agent of King Henry the First protested openly to Pope Paschall Whatsoever is said on this side or on that I would have all men here present to know that my Lord the King of England will not suffer the losse of his Investitures for the losse of his Kingdome To whom Pope Paschall answered as resolutely but not so justly Know thou I speake it before God that Paschall the Pope will not suffer him to keep them without punishment no not for the redemtion of his head Neither was this the case of Anselm or Lanfranke alone but the commoÌ„ case of all Bishops in those dayes Hear the confession of the same author To conclude the very cause of the difference between the King and Anselm seemed a new thing or innovation to this our age and unheard of to the English from the time that the Normans began to Reign that I say not sooner For from the time that William the Norman conquered that Land no Bishop or Abbat was made before Anselm who did not first doe Homage to the King and from his hand by the gift of a Crosier staffe receive the investiture to his Bishoprick or Abbacy except two Bishops of Rochester who were Surrogates to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and inducted by him by the Kings Concession Yea by his Favour so did Anselm himself Though he sought afterwards to wave it And though he be loath to speak out That I say not sooner Yet he might have said sooner and others doe say sooner as Ingulph the Abbat of Crowland in the time of the Conquerer For many yeares past there hath been no free Election of Prelates but the Kings Court did conferre all dignities according to their pleasure by a Ring and by a Crosier And this Custome had held not onely for Many yeares but for many Ages king Edgar did grant to the monkes of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbat for ever but he reserved to him self and to his Heirs the power to invest the Brother elected by the tradition of the Pastorall staffe Thus for our histories now for our Lawes where of I shall need to cite but three The First is the Statute or Assise or Memoriall of Clarendon containing part of the ancient Liberties and Customes of the Realme made in the Generall assembly of the Kingdome King Bishops Peers to which they gave both their oathes assertory for the truth of it and Promissory for performance of it The
fourth Custome was this that when an Arch Bishoprick Bishoprick Abbacy or Priory did fall void the Election was to be made by such of the Principall Dignitaryes or Members of that respective Church which was to be filled as the king should call together for that purpose with the kinges consent in the kings own Chappell And there the person elected was to doe his Homage and Fealty to the King as to his Liege Lord The Pope had no part to Act neither to collate nor consent nor confirm nor Institute nor induct nor ordeine The Second Law is the Statute of Carlile made in the time of Edward the First The summe of it is this That the king is the Founder of all Bishopricks and ought to have the Custody of them in the Vacancyes and the right of Patronage to present to them And that the Bishop of Rome usurping the Right of Patronage giveth them to aliens That this tendeth to the annullation of the State of holy Church to the Disinheriting of Kings and the Destruction of the Realm And they ordained in full Parliament that this is an Oppression that is as much as an entroachment or Vsurpation and should not be suffered The third law was made in the 15th yeare of Edward the third called the Statute of Provisors wherein they affirm that Elections were First granted by the Kings Progenitors upon a certain form or Condition to demand Licenfe of the King to chuse and after the Election to have his Royall Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to resort to his First nature And there fore conclude that in case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch Bishoprick c. Our Soveraign Lord the King and his Heirs shall have and enjoy the Collations for the same time to the said Arch Bishopricks Bishopricks and other dignityes Elective which be of his Aavowre such as his Progenitors had before the free Election was granted They tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Land is such that the King is bound to make remedyes and Lawes against such mischiefes And they acknowledge that he is Advowée Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benifices which are of the Advowry of holy Church That is as much as Soveraign Patron of the Church Where no Election can be made without the Kings Congé d' Estire or leave antecedent nor stand good without his subsequent consent it is all one as if the Crown did Collate I come next to the second Branch of the First Question about the Patronage of the Church Who hath power to Convocate and Dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and whether the Crown or the Pope have usurped one upon another in this particular I cannot tell whether Henry the eighth or Paul the third did mistake more about that Aiery title of the head of the english church Henry the eight supposing that the right to convocate and dissolve Ecclesiasticall Assemblyes and to receive Tenths and First fruits did esseÌ„tially follow this Title And Paul the third declaringe it to be Hereticall and Schismaticall To be head of the English Church is neither more nor lesse then our Lawes and Histories ancient and Modern doe every where ascribe to our English Kings To be Governers of Christians To be the Advocates of the Church To be Patrons and Advowées Paramont of all Churches To be Defenders of the Faâ—h there Professed And to use the Words of the Convocation it self Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectores singulares Vnicos Supremos Dominos The same body may have severall heads of severall kinds upon Earth as Politicall and Ecclesiasticall and then that which takes care of the Archirectonicall end to see that every member doe his Duty is alwayes Supreme That is the Politicall head This truth Cardinall Poole did see clearly enough and reconcile the seeming difference by distinguishing between a Regall head and a Sacerdotall head This truth the French Divines see wel enough and doubt not to call their King the Terrene head of the Church of his Realme without attributing to him any Sacerdotall right Wee had our Sacerdotall heads too in EnglaÌ„d without seeking for theÌ„ so far as Rome As the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reigns of our English Monarchs who of old was Nullius unquam Legati ditioni subjectus Never subject to the Iurisdiction of any Legate When the Pope sent over Guy Archbishop of Vienna into England as his Legate throughout Britaigne for the Apostolicall See It was received with wonder and Admiration of all men Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Episcopum Cantuariae All men did know that it was never heard in Britagne that any Man whatsoever had Apostolicall power over them but onely the Archbishop of Canterbury And accordingly the new Legate did speed so it followeth Wherefore as he came so he returned received as Legate by no man nor having exercised any part of his Legantine power This was the ground of that Letter of the English Bishops to the Pope That the Church of Canterbury might not be deprived of its dignity in his times and that he would neither Diminish it him self nor suffer it to be diminished As appeareth by the Popes acknowledgment in his answer But to come up close to the Difference The Question is not whether â—he Bishop of Rome have Authority to call Synods He is a Bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Prince in his own Dominions As a Bishop he may Convocate his Diocesse As a Metropolitan his Province As a Patriarch his Patriarchate under the pain of Ecclesiasticall Censure more or lesse compulsory according to that Degree of Coactive power which hath been indulged to him in these Distinct Capacities by former Soveraigns And as a Prince he may convocate his Subjects under Politicall paines The more these two powers are united and complicated the more terrible is the Censure And therefore our kings would have their Bishops denounce spirituall paines also against the Violaters of their great Charters Spirituall paiues are more heauy then Politicall but Politicall most commonly are more speedy then Spirituall And more certain Spirituall paines doe not follow an erring Key but Politicall doe Neither will I dispute at praesent whether the Bishop of Rome by his reputed Primacy of Order or Beginning of Unity may lawfully call an Oecumenicall or Occidentall Councell by power purely Spirituall which consists rather in Advise then in Mandates properly so called or in Mandates of Courtesy not Coactive in the Exteriour Court of the Church considering the Division and Subdivision of the ancient Empire and the present Distractions of Christendome it seemeth not altogether in convenient Wee see the Primitive Fathers did Assemble Synods and â—ake Canons before there were any christian Emperours but that was by aurhority meerly spirituall they
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
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
our Church witnesse the Professions of King Iames witnesse all our Statutes themselves wherein all the parts of Papall power are enumerated which are taken away His Entroachments his Vsurpations his Oaths his Collations Provisions Pensions Tenths First fruits Reservations Palls Vnions Commendams Exemptions Dispensations of all kinds Confirmations Licenses Faculties Suspensions Appeales and God knoweth how many pecuniary Artifices more but of them all there is not one that concerneth Iurisdiction purely Spirituall or which is an essentiall right of the power of the Keys They are all Branches of the Externall Regiment of the Church the greater part of them usurped from the Crowne sundry of them from Bishops and some found out by the Popes themselves as the payment for Palls which was nothing in S. Gregoryes time but a free gift or liberality or bounty free from imposition and exaction Lastly consider the grounds of all our grievances expressed frequently in our Lawes and in other writers The disinheriting of the Prince and Peers The destruction and Anullation of the Lawes and the Prerogative Royall The Vexation of the King Liege people The impoverishing of the Subjects the draining the Kingdome of its treasure The decay of Hospitality The disservice of God And filling the Churches of England with Forreiners The excluding Temporall Kings and Princes out of their Dominions The Subjecting of the Realm to spoil and ravine grosse Simoniacall contracts Sacrilege Grievous and intolerable oppressioÌ„s and extortions Iurisdiction purely Spirituall doth neither disinherit the Prince nor the Peers nor destroy and anull the Lawes and Prerogative royall nor vex the Kings Liege people nor impoverish the Subject nor draine the Kingdome of its Treasures nor fill the Churches with Forreiners nor exclude Temporall Kings out of their Dominions nor subject the Realm to spoile and Ravine Authority purely spirituall is not guilty of the decay of Hospitality or disservice of Almighty God or Simony or Sacrilege or oppressions and extortions No No it is the externall regiment of the Church by new Roman Lawes and Mandates by new Roman Sentences and Iudgements by new Roman Pardons and dispensations by new Roman Synods and Oaths of Fidelity by new Roman Bishops and Clerkes It is your new Roman Tenths and First fruits and Provisions and Reservations and Pardons and Indulgences and the rest of those horrible mischiefs and damnable Customs that are apparently guilty of all these evills These Papall Innovations we have taken away indeed and deservedly having shewed the expresse time and place and person when and where and by whom every one of them was first introduced into England And we have restored to every Bird his own Feather To the King his Politicall Supremacy to the Peers their Patronages to the Bishops that Iurisdiction which was due to them either by Divine right or Humane right More then these Innovations we have taken nothing away that I know of Or rather it is not wee nor Henry the eighth who did take these Innovations away but our Ancesters by their Lawes three foure five hundred yeares old so soone as they began to sprout out or indeed before they were well formed as their Statutes yet extant doe evidence to the world But that filth which they swept out at the Fore doore the RomaÌ„ Emissaryes brought in again at the back doore All our part or share of this worke was to confirm what our ancesters had done I see no reason why I might not conclude my discourse upon this Subject Mutatis Mutandis with as much Confidence as Sanders did his visible Monarchy Quisquis jurabit per Viventem in aeternum c. Whosoever shall sweare by him that liveth for ever that the Church of England is not Schismaticall in respect of any Branches of Papall power which shee hath cast out at the Reformation he shall not forswear himself But Wagers and Oaths and Protestations are commonly the Arguments of such as have got the wrong end of the staffe I will shut up this long Discourse concerning Henry the eighths Reformation with a short Apostrophe to my Countrymen of the Roman Communion in England They have been taâ—ght that it is we who Apostate from the Faith of our Ancesters in this point of the Papacy that it is we who renounce the Vniversall and perpetual Tradition of the Christian world Whereas it is we who maintain ancient Apostolicall Tradition against their upstart Innovations whereas it is we who doe propugne the Cause of our Ancesters against the Court of Rome If our Ancesters were Catholick in this Cause we cannot be Schismaticall Let them take heed least whilst they fly oâ—t of a Panicall Feare from a supposed Schisme they doe not plunge themselves over head and eares into reall Schisme Let theÌ„ choose whether they will joine with their Ancesters in this cause or with the Court of Rome for with both they cannot joine If true English blood run in their veins they cannot be long deliberating about that which their Ancesters even all the Orders of the Kingdome voted unanimously That they would stand by their King and maintaine the rights of his Imperiall Crown against the Vsurpations of the Roman Court. I have represented clearly to you the true Controversy betweeÌ„ the Church and Kingdome of England and the Court of Rome concerning Papall power not as it is stated by private writers but in our English Lawes a glasse that cannot deceive us for so farre as to let us see the right Difference Let them quit these grosse Vsurpations Why should they be more ashamed to restore our lust rights then they were to plunder us of them Let them distinguish between Iurisdiction purely Spirituall and Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court which for the much greatest part of it is Politicall between the power of the Sword which be longeth to the Civill Soveraign and not to the Church further then he hath been graciously pleased to communicate it between that Obedience with procedeth from feare of wrath or from feare of Gods Revenger to execute wrath that is the Soveraign Prince and that Obedience which proceedeth meerly from conscience And then there is hope we may come to understand one another better It is true there are other Differences between us but this is the main Difference which giveth Denomination to the Parties And when they come to presse those Differences they may come to have such another account as they have now The wider the hole groweth in the middle of the Milstone Men see clearer through it Dies Diei eructat verbum nox nocti indicaâ— Scientiam The latter day is the Schollar of the former Sect. I. Cap. X. BY this time wee see that Mr. Serjeants great Dispatch will prove but a sleevelesse Errand and that his First Movership in the Church which he thought should have born down all before it is an unsignificant expression and altogether impertinent to the true Controversy between them and us Vnlesse as Dido did encompasse the
their fore fathers to be the infallible voice of the Church At other times he maketh the extent of Papall power to be a matter of Indifferency wherein every Church is free to hold their own Opinions In his Rule of Discipline he maketh St. Peter onely to be the Head the Chiefe the Prince of the Apostles the First mover in the Church all which in a right sense we approve or do not oppose Why doth he not acknowledge him to be a visible Monarch an absolute Soveraign invested with a plenitude of power Soveraign Legislative Iudiciary Dispensative All the rest of the Apostles were First Movers in the Church even as well as St. Peter except onely his Primacy of order which we allow When your men come to aâ—swer this they feign the Apostles were all equall in relatioÌ„ to ChristiaÌ„ people but not in relatioÌ„ to one another Yes even in Relation to themselves and one another as hath beeÌ„ expresly declared long since in the First Generall Councell of Ephesus not now to be contradicted by them Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Peter and Iohn were of equall Dignity one towards another A Primacy of Order may confist with an Equality of Dignity but a Supremacy of power taketh away all Parity Par in parem non habet potestatem He is blind who doth no see in the History of the Acts of the Apostles that the supremacy or Soveraignty of power did not rest in the person of any one single Apostle but in the Apostolicall College These indefinite Generalities he stileth Determinate points It may be Determinate for the generall truth but Indeterminate for the particular manner about which all the Controversy is Yet he who never wanteth Demonstrative Arguments to prove what he listeth will make it evident out of the very word Reformation which we own and extoll that we have broken the Rule of Unity in Discipline If he doe he hath good luck for by the same reason he may prove that all the Councells of the Christian world both Generall and Provinciall have broken the Bond of Vnity by owning and extolling the very word Reformation both name and thing As for the points of our Reformation I doe not referre him to Platonicall Ideas to be found in the Concave of the Moone but to our Lawes and Statutes made by all the Orders of our Kingdome Church and Commonwealth not as they are wrested by the tongnes and pens of our Adversaries Malice may be a good informer but a bad judge but as they are expounded by the Genuine and Orthodox Sons of the English Church by our Princes by our Synods by our subsequent Parliaments by our Theologians by our most Iudicious Lawiers in their Injunctions in their Acts in their Canons in their writings which he may meete with if he have such a mind in earnest without any great search in every Library or Stationers shop Sect I. Cap. XI We doe not suffer any man to reject the 39. Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure yet neither doe we looke upon them as Essentialls of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and of his Apostles but in a meane as pious Opinions fitted for the Preservation of Vnity neither doe we oblige any man to believe them but onely not to contradict them Yet neither is the Bishop got into a wood nor leaveth his Reader in another further from knowing what these Doctrines of saving Faith are then he was at first It is Mr. Serjeants Eyesight that failes him through too much light which maketh him mistake his ancient Creed for a wood and the Articles for trees persons who are gogle eied seldome see well wherein all things necessary to be believed are comprehended And although he inquire Where are the processions of the Divine Persons the Sacraments Baptism of Children the Government of the Church the acknowledging there is such a thing as Scripture to be be found in the creed The Bishop is so far from being gravelled with sâ—ch doughty Questions that he pitieth his simplicity aÌ„d returneth him for answer that if he be not mopâ—eyed he may find the Procession of the Divine Persons in his Creed that the Sacraments and Discipline of the Church are not to be reckoned amoÌ„g the Credenda or things to be believed but among the Agenda or things to be acted and the Holy Scripture is not a particular Doctrin or point of Faith but the Rule wherein and whereby all Fundamentall Doctrins or points of Faith are comprehended and tried So still his truth remaineth unshaken that the Creed is a Summary of all particular points of saving faith which are necessary to be believed He proceedeth that the Protestants have introduced into the Church since the Reformation no particular Form of Government in stead of that they renounced A grievous accusation We had no need to introduce new formes having preserved the old They who do onely weed a Garden have no need to set new Plants We have the Primitive Discipline of the Church and neither want Spirituall nor Ecclesiasticall nor Politicall Government If you have any thing to say against it cough out and spare not And although we want such a free and generall Communion with the Christian World as we could wish and such as Bishops had one with another by their formed Letters Yet we have it in our desires and that we have it not actually it is principally your faults who make your Vsurpations to be Conditions of your Communion And so I leave him declaiming against Libraries of Bookes filled with dead words and thousands of Volumes scarcely to be examined in a mans whole life time and quibling about Forefathers and inheriting and Reformation and Manasseh Ben Israel and repeating the same things over and over againe as if no man did understand him who did not heare him say over the same things an hundred times He Chargeth me that having granted that They and we do both maintain his Rule of Vnity yet I do immediatly disgrace it by adding that the Question is only who have changed that Doctrin or this Discipline we or they We by substraction or they by Addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is no Rule at all When he and his Merry Stationer were set upon the Pin of making Contradictions doubtlesse this was dubbed a famous Contradiction or an absurdity at least As if a man might not hold one thing in his Iudgement and pursue another in his Practice professe one thing in words and perform another in deeds Video melior a proboque Deterior a sequor Medea see that which was right and approved it but swerved altogether from it in her Practise They professe saith St. Paul that they know God but in workes they deny him The Church of Rome professeth in words to adde nothing to the Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in their deeds they doe adde and adde
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
he peradventure never read it But what doth he thinke of the Councells of Constance and Basile who professe themselves every where to be qualified to reform the Church tam in Capite quam in membris as well in the head as in the members They escape fairly if he doe not censure them as Protestants for they were great Reformers and they were no great Papists placing the Soveraign power under Christ in the Church and not in the first Mover I might well call the Reformation in Henry the eights time their Reformation the Papists Reformation rather then ours if the Reformers were more Papists then Protestants as it most evident I pressed him that if the Renunciation of the Bishop of Romes absolute vniversall Monarchy by Christs own Ordination be the essence of a Protestant then the Primitive Church were all Protestants He answereth it is flatsy false I am contented to be silent for the present but when time serveth it may be made appeare to be flatly true and that all that the Primitive Fathers did attribute to the Bishop of Rome was no more them a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity and that an absolute Monarchy by Christ Ordination is absolutely repugnant to the Primitive Discipline I proceeded then all the Graecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants this day He answereth that it it is partly true and partly false and serveth onely to prove that the Protestants have fellow Schismaticks And why partly true and partly false when all the world seeth that all these Churches doe disown and disclaime the Popes Monarchy This is just the old condemned Tenet of the Schismaticall Donatists who did most uncharitably limit the Catholick Church to their own Party excluding all others from hope of Salvation as the Romanists doe now The best is we must stand or fall to our owne Master But by this means they have lost one of the notes of their Church that is multitude for they exclude three or four times more Christians out of the Communion of the Catholick Church then they admit into it I proceeded yet higher then we want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self His answer is that to speake moderately it is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility for whosoever renounceth the Substance of the Popes Authority and his being head of the Church becomes totally disunited from the Church Good words His groundworke is to weake to support the weight of such an heavy accusation A Primacy of Order implyeth an headship as well as Supremacy of power neither is it destitute of all power It hath some power essentially annexed to it to congregate sub paena purè spirituali to propose to give sentence according to the votes of the College It may have an accessary power to execute the Canons according to the Constitutions of Councells and Imperiall Sanctions and Confirmations But all this commeth far short of that headship which he asserteth a Soveraign Monarchicall Headship of absolute power above the whole Church by Christs Ordination This is that Headship which he mainteineth against me every where This is that Headship which the Primitive Church never acknowledged This is that Headship which the Grecians Russians Armenians Abyssines and the Church of England renounce at this day This is that Headship which many of his own Communion who live in the bosome of the Roman Church do not believe as the Councells of Constance and Basile and Pisa the Schoole of Sorbon and very many others every where who do all reject it some more some lesse The maine difference and almost the whole difference between him and me is concerning Coactive power in the Exteriour Court over the Subjects of other Princes against their wills this is so far from being vniversaly believed throughout all places of the Roman Communion that it is practically received in few or no places further then it seemeth expedient to Soveraign Princes If the Pope himself did believe that he had such an absolute Soveraignty of Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination to him and his Successors How could he alienate it from his Successors almost wholy to the Princes of Sicily and to their Heirs for ever within that Kingdome Or how could the Princes retein it If the King and Kingdome of France did believe that the Pope had such an absolute Monarchicall power in the Exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination how could the King of France forbid the Popes Legates without his License or restrain their Legantine Commissions by his Parliaments or sweare them to act nothing contrary to the Liberties of the Gallican Church and to cease to execute their Commissions whēsoever the King and Kingdome should prohibit them or reject Papall decrees further then they are received in that Kingdome Or if the Councell of Brabant did believe it how could they forbid the Subjects to repaire to Rome out of their own Country upon the Popes Summons All men know that there is no Privilege or Prescription against Christs own Ordination Qui pauca considerat facile pronunciat This is ever the end of his Contradictions Lastly he Chargeth me for omitting to answer to his reason that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantisme Truly I neither did nor do hold it worth answering Cannot he distinguish between the whole Essence of any thing and one Essentiall He might as well affirm that he who believeth but one Article of his Creed is a Christian. This requireth no great skill to explicate it but I have remitted this Controversy to the Reader as fittest for his determination Sect. III. That Henry the 8. made no new Law But onely vindicated the ancient Liberties of England CHristian Reader thou hast seen hitherto how Mr. Serjeant hath failed altogether to make good his pretensions and in stead of those great mountains of Absurdities and falsifications and Contradictions which he promised hath produced nothing worthy of so weighty a cause or an ingenious Schollar but his own wilfull ridiculous mistakes We are now come to his third Section wherein thou maiest see this young Phaeton mounted in his Triumphant Chariot driving the poore Bishop as a Captive before him now expect to see him tumbling down headlōg with a fall answerable to his height of pride and insolence He professeth himself willing to stand to the Award of the most partiall Protestant living who hath so much sincerity as to acknowledge the Suns shining at noone day or that the same thing cannot both be and not be at once If after this lowd confident bragge he be not able to make any thing good that is of weight against me he hath forfeited either his Iudgement or his ingenuity and deserveth not to be a writer of Controversies I need no partiall Iudges but appeale to the indifferent Reader of what communion soever he be he needeth but to compare my Vndication his Answer my Reply his Rejoinder and my
Surrejoinder together in this one short Section and give sentence readily who is the Mountebanke and Prevaricatour And first I challenge this great Champion of downright Cowardise as great as ever his Predecessour Thraso shewed in the Comedy in smothering and concealing palpably and shamefully his Adversaries reasons and declining the heat of the assault The maine subject of this Section was to shew that the ancient Kings of England did assume as much power in Ecclesiasticall affaires as Henry the eighth did that the Lawes of Henry the eighth were no new Lawes but onely renovations and Confirmations of the ancient Lawes of England which had never bene repealed or abrogated in the dayes of his Predecessors but were of force in England at that very time when he made his Lawes As the Statutes of Clarendon The Statute of Carlile The Articles of the Clergy The Statutes of Provisors and other old Lawes made in the time of Henry the first Henry the third Edward the first and Edward the third Richard the second Henry the Fourth all of them dead and gone many ages before Henry the eighth was born I shewed particularly that they suffered not the Pope to send for any English Subject out of England to Rome without leave nor to send any Legate into England without leave nor to receive any Appeale out of England without leave They made it death or at least the forfeiture of all a mans estate to bring any Papall Bulls or Excommunications into England They called Ecclesiasticall Councells made Ecclesiasticall Lawes punished Ecclesiasticall persons prohibited Ecclesiasticall Iudges received Ecclesiasticall Appeales made Ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated Ecclesiasticall Benifices rejected the Popes Lawes at their pleasure with a Nolumus wee will not have the Lawes of England to be Changed or gave Legislative Interpretations of them as they thought fit All this I have made evideÌ„t out of our ancient Lawes our Records our Historiographers in my Vindication in my Reply and in this Treatise And therefore I might well retort upon him his own Confident bragge that it is as cleare as the suns shining at noone day or that the same thing cannot be and not be at once that our Ancestours who did all this and much more then this did acknowledge no Monarchicall power of the Pope in the Exteriour Court by Christs own Ordination as Mr. Serjeant asserteth and that they did exercise as much power in the externall Regiment of the Church as Henry the eighth did and that Henry the eighths lawes were no new lawes devised by himself but were the lawes of these ancient Kings renewed by him or rather the Fundamentall Lawes and Liberties of England exposed by these ancient Kings as a Buckler against the Encroachments of the Roman Court. Now to all this cleare evidence what answer doth Mr. Serjeant make Iust Thraso-like when the matter comes to push of pike he sneaketh away post principia into the securest place he can find Speak the truth in earnest did Pyrrhus use to doe thus It is not possible to squeese one word of particular answer out of him onely in generall he saith I bring divers allegations wherein the Popes pretenses were not admitted c. And so proceedeth doe we professe the Pope can pretend to no more then his right c. Lawes and Records are but bare Allegations with him and prohibiting under pain of Death or Confiscation of Goods is no more but not admitted Speake out man and shame the devill whether did the Pope pretend more then is right or not whether were the ancieÌ„t English Lawes just Lawes or not This is certain his Pretensions and these Lawes cannot both be just The very substance of his Monarchicall power in the exteriour Court is prohibited by these Lawes his Soveraign power or Patronage of the English Church his Iudiciary Power his Legislative Power his dispensative Power all are lost if these Lawes stand All which Mr. Serjeant blancheth over with this generall expression such and such things Will the Court of Rome thank such and such an Advocate who forsakes them at a dead lift I trow no. And although I called upon him in my reply for a fuller and more satisfactory answer to these Lawes yet he giveth none in his Rejoinder but shuffleth up the matter in Generalls As for his particularities entrenching on or pretended to entrench on the Popes Authority whether they were lawfully done or no how far they extended in what Circumstances or cases they held in what not how the Letter of those Lawes are to be understood c. all which the Bishop Omitts though he expresse the bare words it belongs to Canon and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about them not me I hold my self to the Lists of the Question and the limits of a Controvertist Yes even as Thrasoheld himself to the Lists when he stole behind the second wards This is neither more nor lesse but flat running away and crying to the Canonists for help If the subject be improper for him why did he undertake it and not try first Quid ferre recusent Quid valeant humeri Why did he undertake it with so much youthfull Confidence and insulting scorn and petulance to accuse his adversary of impudence And as if impudence were too moderate a Character for him as a profest and sworn enemy of truth shame and honesty making him worse then a mad man or born foole And all this for pretending that Henry the eighth did no more against the Papacy then his Ancestour Kings had done before him and now when his Cavills are thrust down his own throat when the impudence is brought home to him and laid at his own doore when the very Lawes of his Ancestours are produced wherein they provided the same remedies for the Roman Court that Henry the eighth did he would with draw his own neck oâ—t of the Collar and leave the defence of his cause to the CanoÌ„ and Secular Lawiers to scuffle about the sense of these ancieÌ„t Lawes and whether they were law fully done or no and how far they extended and in what cases they hold in what not And this is all the answer which he vouchsafeth to these ancient English Lawes that is as much as to say he knoweth not what to answer or it doth not belong to him to answer and this he calleth holding himself to the Lists of the Question but all other men call it leaping out of the Lists of the Question and a shamefull deserting the cause he had uâ—dertaken to defend I ever acknowledged that Henry the eighth made sundry new Staâ—utes against the Vsurpations of the Court of Rome but I adde that these Statutes were declarative of old Law not Enactive of new Law This is as cleare as his noone day-light And I proved it by the Authority of two of our greatest Lawiers Fitz Herbert and my Lord Cooke persons sufficient to know the difference between a Statute declarative of old Law and a Statute Enactive of new
Secondly I proved it by one of the Principall Statutes themselves those terms of Law which declare old Law are not the same with those which enact new Law This proofe is demonstrative He urgeth if there were something new it was new and a Statute we Englishmen use to term a Law So if he new turn his Coat there is something new yet we English men say his Coat is and old Coat for all that Magna Charta or the great Charter of England is an old Law yet it hath been renewed or newly declared by almost every succeeding King New Statutes may declare old Lawes He saith I cite two Protestants Fitz-Herbert and my Lord Cooke both of mine owne party to speake in behalf of Protestants I cite no Protestants as Protestants nor to speak for Protestants nor as witnesses in any case in difference between Protestants and Papists but I cite two great English Iudges as Iudges to speak to the Difference between a Declarative Statute and an Enactive Statute by the Law of England and who could be so proper witnesses of the Law of England as they Secondly who told him that Fitzherbert was a Protestant No more a Protestant then himself for any thing that ever I could perceive He was a great Iudge lived in Henry the eighths time and writ sundry workes Where he setteth down the Charge against a Papist he doth it in such a manner that it can hurt no man except he will confesse himself to have done what he did obstinately and maliciously but where he setteth down the charge of a Iustice of Peace against Hereticks or Lollards he giveth it home But Mr. Serjeant hath the art to make Protestants or Papists of whom he list so it serve his present turn Thirdly though Fitzherbert and my Lord Cooke had said nothing yet the case is as cleare as the light that this very Statute is Declarative of old Fundamentall Law not Enactive of new Law And this I prove first by view of the Statute it self He that hath but half an eye in his head may easily discern the difference between an Enactive Statute and a declarative Satute An Enactive Statute looketh onely forward to the time to come and medleth not at all with the time past but a declarative law looketh both wayes backwards and forwards forward to the time to come and backward to the time past Again the very from and tenour of the words is not the same in an Enactive Statute and in a Declarative Statute An Enactive Statute regardeth onely what shall be but a Declarative regardeth what is and what hath been an Enactive Statute createth new Law by the authority of the present Lawgiver a Declarative Statute cōfirmeth old Law and is commonly grounded upon the Fundamentall Constitution of the Kingdome Now then let us take a view of this very Law By divers old authētick histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared that this realm of England in an Empire and so hath been accepted in the world governed by one supreme head and King c. unto whom a body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty owe next to God a naturall obedience he being instituted by the goodnesse of God with plenary power to render finall justice for all matters You see plainly that this Statute looketh both wayes forward and backward and doth not onely create new Law but also declare what hath been what is and what ought to be the perpetuall Law of England By diverse old authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared c. then it is manifest that this is a declarative Law He saith I quote the Schismaticall King himself and the Schismaticall Parliament to speake in their own behalf By his leave he is mistaken I ground not my reason upon the Authority of the King and Parliament but upon the form or tenour of the Statute whether these words doe contain the form of an Enactive Statute or a Declarative Statute Secondly if I did so yet he hath no reason to complain of it who maketh the Pope and his Councell to be the last Iudge in his own case Thirdly I shall be bold to scrue up this pin a note higher and tell him that if Henry the eight did make himself the last Iudge in those differences between him and the Papacy which concerned the Church and Kingdome of England he did no more then many other Christian Kings and Princes have done before him as I have shewed in the Empire Spain Italy Brabant c. Fourthly if that which was decreed in this Law was decreed in former Lawes standing in full force and unrepealed then it is not Enactive of new Law but Declarative of old Law but I have produced him the Lawes themselves wherein the self same things have been decreed and he turneth his back upon them and referreth us to the Canonists for an answer Lastly it is so far from being true that those Statutes made by Henry the eighth were new Lawes tha◠those ancient Statutes of Clarendon of Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors were no new Lawes when they were made but new declarations of the Fundamētall Lawes of England or of the Originall Constitution of the English Empire as appeareth undeniably by the Statutes of Clarendon the Statute of Carlile and the Statutes of Provisors wherein the same truth is affirmed as positively as I can do it But now Reader wilt thou see a convincing proofe of the extreme carelesnesse and unconscionable oscitance of this great Champion who writeth his answers at Randome and never so much as readeth what is objected against him I cited two Statutes the one of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. the other of 16 Ric. 2. cap. 5. The Printer citeth them right i◠the margent but a little confusedly but when Mr. Serjeant commeth to answer them he confoundeth them indeed attributing Richard the seconds Statute to Henry the eighth And lest any man should excuse him and say it was the fault of the Printer heare him he alledgeth another Statute made in the 24. of Henry the 8 Yes well guessed otherwise called the 16. of Richard the second And a little after what maters it what this Statute sayes being made two yeares after his unlawfull marriage with Anna Bullen I know not where he learned this except it was from the old Puppet player who would have Queen Dido to be Richard the thirds Mistresse he might perchance have such another odde Fancy that Richard the second was Anne Bullens Servant That which I observe in earnest is this that he answereth at Random to he knoweth not what and never peruseth that which is objected against him If it had been some rare piece that was cited that he could not have come by it it had bene the more pardonable but it is an English Statute which he might have found in every Bookebinders Shop in every Lawiers Study in every Iustice
were ordeined at home and therefore the Bishop of Rome could have no jurisdiction over them I said no more of Phocas but this that the Popes preteÌ„ses were more from Phocas then St. Peter He referreth me to his answer to Doctor Hammond And I refer him to Doctor Hammond for a reply as Impertinent to my present businesse When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad Meditation upon this Subject I confesse ingenuously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Popes Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had been a cause of my trouble proved a meanes of my â—inall Satisfaction For seing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spirituall Monarch The reasons of my Resolution I have set down and received no answer Yet it shall not seem irksome to me to repeat them as desiring nothing but the discovery of the truth First I argue thus The Soveraign Government and the Subordinate Government of the same person in the same Society or body Politick or Ecclesiastick is inconsistent But the Popes pretended Monarchy or Supremacy of power over the whole Church and his Patriarchall Dignity in the same Church are a Soveraign and Subordinate Government of the same person in the same body Ecclesiastick The reason of the Major is because Soveraign power is single of one person or Society but this subordinate power is conjoint of fellow Patriarchs Soveraign Power is Vniversall but this subordinate power is particular And therefore as a Quadrangle cannot be a Triangle nor a King a Sherif of a Shire or a President of a Province within his own Kingdome so neither can the same person be an Vniversall Monarch and a particular Patriarch Secondly the Spirituall Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop is pretended to be by divine right his Patriarchall power is confessedly by humane right but a Spirituall Soveraignty by divine right and an inferiour dignity by humane right are inconsistent As it is absurd to say that God should make a man a Prince and after the people make him a Peer or God should give him a Greater Dignity and afterwards the people coÌ„ferre a lesse upon him Thirdly a Soveraignty above the CanoÌ„s besides the Canons against the Canons to make them to abrogate them to suspend them with a Non obstante to dispense with them at pleasure where the Canon gives no dispensative power and a Subjection to the Canons to be able to do nothing against them are inconsistent But suâ—h a Soveraign Power is above the Canons and such a Patriarchall power is subject to the Canons Therefore they are inconsistent All the answer he offereth to these two Instances the one that Bishop Vsher was at once Bishop of Armagh and as such the Bishop of Derries superiour I answer first he mistaketh much The Primacy of Ireland and the Archbishoprick of Armagh are not two diâ—â—inct dignities but one and the self same dignitie but the Monarchicall power of the Pope by divine right and his Patriarchall power by Humane right are two distinct dignities Secondly the Primate of Ireland is not indowed with Monarchicall power but all the difficulty here lieth in the Conjunction of Monarchicall power and Subordinate power His other Instance must a person leave of to be Master of his own Family because he is made King and his Authority extendeth over all England I answer first his Argument is a transition into another kind or an excursion from one kind of power to another from Politicall power in the Commonwealth to an Oeconomicall power in the Family Secondly it is one thing to make an inferiour person a King and another thing to make a King a Constable or to make Soveraignty and Subordination consist together When a King doth discharge the place of a Generall of an Army he acquireth no new dignity or power or place no man calleth him my lord Generall but he doth it as a King by his Kingly power to which no higher or larger power can be added but the Bishop of Rome did not doth not exercise Patriarchall power by virtue of his Monarchy by divine Ordination but by humane right first by Custome or prescription and then by authority of the Councell of Nice All the world seeth and acknowledgeth that the Bishop of Rome hath more power in his Bishoprick then he hath out of it in the rest of his Province aÌ„d more power in his Province then he hath out of it in his Patriarchate and more power in his own Patriarchate then he hath in anothers Patriarchate but if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination he should have the same power every where if he had a Soveraignty of Power and Iurisdiction by Christs own Ordination then all Patriarchall power should flow from him as from the Originall Fountain of all Ecclesiaasticall honour But the Contrary is most apparent that all the Patriarchs even the Roman himself did owe their Patriarchall power to the Customes of the Church and Canons of the Fathers These are the reasons why I conceive Monarchicall Power and Patriarchall power to be inconsistent in one and the same persoÌ„ But the Pope was coÌ„fessedly a Patriarch therefore no Monarch The next thing which commeth to be observed is his ExceptioÌ„s to Dionothus the learned Abbat of Bangor his aÌ„swer to Austin professing Canonicall Obedience to the Archbishop of CaerleoÌ„ in his own name aÌ„d the name of the British Church and disclaiming all ObedieÌ„ce except of Brotherly love to the Bishop of Rome His first exception was the naming of the Bishop of Rome Pope without any Addition of Name or place contrary to the use of those times For aÌ„swer I committed him and his Friend Bellarmine together WheÌ„ the word Pope is put alone the Bishop of Rome onely is to be understood as appeareth out of the Councell of Chalcedon the most blessed and Apostolicall man the Pope doth command us this without adding Leo or Rome or the City of Rome or any other thing He sleighteth Bellarmine and rebuketh me for folly to think that Catholick writers cannot disagree and answereth the Councell that thought the word Pope be alone without Addition Yet which is equivalent the Comitant Circumstances sufficiently indigitate the person For the words were spokeÌ„ by Boniface the Popes Vicegerent As if there were not the same indigitating CircuÌ„stances here as well as there the words being spoken by Austin the Popes Legate and Vicar as well as Boniface in the name of Pope Gregory to the Britons which were answered here by Dinoth His second exception to Dinoths Testimony is that there was no such Bishoprick as Caerleon in those dayes the See being removed from Caerleon to Menevia or S. Davids fifty yeares before this That it was removed before this I acknowledge but how long before this is uncertain Some Authors make S. Gregory and S. David to have died
OppressioÌ„s and ExtortioÌ„s of the Court of Rome in points of Fact Secondly their grosse and grievous usurpations in point of Right Thirdly the malignant influence of forrain discipline in point of Policy It is he that huddles them together because they are so foule and so evident that he dare not take a view of them singly much lesse repeat them and so they might be buried in Oblivion for him unlesse the Reader be pleased to take a review of them I shall not willingly adde a word more either to the Extortions or Malignant Influence because I Iudge in Charity that all good men doe wish them amended as well as I And for the Vsurpations being matter of perpetuall right I hope I have cleared them sufficieÌ„tly in this Treatise throughout the first SectioÌ„ But what is his answer to all this That it is disputable between Canon and Civill Lawiers whether many of these were abuses or just rights of which kind of Controversy he neither thinkes me nor himself competent Iudges Adding that these Questions doe not concern our present quarrell How not concern our Quarrell They are all the Quarrell we have and not a Primacy of Order or any power purely spirituall in the Court of Conscience If he have nothing to doe with these why doth he meddle to no purpose whatsoever power was given by Christ or is recorded in Scripture is expresly excepted out of our Law And once more Reader observe and wonder that these men who called upon us often for the Grounds of our Seperation must be called on as often for a faire answer He promised to shew the Readers a Monster in this Section for pence a piece It seemeth by his bogling he seeth something that he is affraid to meddle with I doubt he will prove a true Prophet of himself that all the Readers satisfaction for their money will be to tell them that he hath abused them But it may be he is better at his sword then at his Buckler at opposing in Generalls then defending himself from Particulars Althoâ—gh he hath not given us one particular answer to the truth or falshood of the Crimes and inconvenieÌ„ces objected yet he giveth in seven generall Exceptions but it is with as much hast as the dogge by Nilus which runnes and drinkes First he saith those inconveniences which I mention if they had been true are abuses in theâ— Officer not faults in the Office which ought not to be taken away for them Intolerable extortions and grosse Vsurpations are no more with him then inconveniences This Objection was answered by me before it was moved by him if he had not thought fit to smother it where I distinguish between the personall faults of Popes and faulty principles or Lawes and shew how farre the one and the other doe warrant a Seperation The former onely from the faulty person to preserve ourselves from participating with him in his Crimes The latter from the faulty Office so farre as it is faulty untill it be reformed Neither have we taken away any Office but onely abuses and Vsurpations Secondly he excepreth that some of these pretended abuses are onely my own Deductions which I shew not evidently ouâ— of the Science of Politicks but out of two or three matters of Fact I answer that experience is the Polititians best Schoolmaster and that every man findeth where his own Shoe wringeth him much better by wearing it himself then by hearing others discourse of it But I thanke him for his Memento and the next time I have occasion to make use of it I shall demoÌ„strate to him out of the ScieÌ„ce of Politicks that Forrain IurisdictioÌ„ is uselesse and chargeable to the Subject Dangerous and destructive to the King and Commonwealth a Rack and Gibbet to the Conscience by subjecting it to two Supremes who may possibly clash one with another and altogether opposite to the Ecclesiasticall Policy of the Primitive times which conformed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to the Civill Thirdly he pleadeth that I doe not prove that some of these pretended abuses were not just rights but onely shew that such and such things were done and that either party had learned Lawiers for them and that sometimes the Kings renounced their pretenses as in point of Investitures I answer that the Opposition of King and Kingdome to any branch of Papall power sheweth evidently that they did not believe that the Pope had any right to it divine or humane and clearly destroieth his Foundation of immediate Tradition How should they leave that to their Children as a Legacy of Christ or his Apostles which they themselves rejected Our Kings never renounced their right of Investitures onely they consented that they should not give Investitures in their own persons but by a Bishop still reteining both the right of Patronage and their Feudall Oaths Fourthly he saith that these temporall Lawes which I cite concluder not evidently a right and reason gives more particular respect to Ecclesiasticall lawes then to temporall I answer though such Lawes doe not alwaies prove a right Yet they alwaies prove the common consent of the Kingdome what they esteem to be right they alwayes disprove the Popes Prescription But he is wholy mistaken many of those Lawes which I cited were Ecclesiasticall Lawes And the Popes Decretalls which he intimateth for Lawes are no Lawes nor ever were held for Lawes in England without the reception of the Church and Kingdome Reason gives more respect to the Sanctions of Bishops then of Kings in cases purely spirituall but more respect to the Lawes of Kings then of Bishops in the Externall Regiment of the Church within their own dominions Fifthly he chargeth me for saying that the Pope usurped most injustly all right Civill Ecclesiasticall Sacred Prophane of all Orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. Which he calleth a lowd â—outhed Calumny By his favour he doth me wrong and himself more with his foule Language when he is not provoked at all I said not all right in the abstract but all rights in the concreâ—e Hath he forgotten that which every boy in the Vniversity knoweth to distinguish betwixt singula generum and genera singulorum Some of all sorts and all without exception My words onely signify some rights of all sorts as is evident by the words following Civill Ecclesiasticall sacred prophane of all Orders of men Kings Nobles Bishops c. which is an ordinary and proper expression and cannot possibly be extended to all rights without exception Sixthly he urgeth that grant all these abuses had heen true was there no other remedy but division Had not the Secular Governours the sword in their hand Did it not lye in their power to chuse whether they would admit things destructive to their rights I answer that it doth not alwaies rest in the power of the Civill Magistrate to doe that which is best in it self especially in seditious times when the Multitude as a good Authour saith doe more readily
obey their Priests then their Kings But they must move their Rudder according to the Various Face of the Sky and await for a fitter opportunity As our Kings did which fell oâ—t at the Reformation when they followed his Counsaile in good earnest and with the Civill sword did lop away all Papall Vsurpations and abuses Other Division then this to divide between the rotteâ— and the sound we made none The great division which followed our Reformation was made by themselves and their Censures Our Articles do testify to all the world that we have made no division from any Church but onely from Errours and Abuses Seventhly he pleadeth that in case these temporall inconveniences had not been otherwise remediable yeâ— Ecclesiasticall Communion ought not to be broken for temporall Concernments To prove this Conclusion he bringeth six reasons some pertinent some impertinent and very improper but he might have saved his labour For if he understand his Conclusion in that sense wherein he ought to understand it and wherein I hope he doth understand it of deserting the Communion of the Catholick Church or of any member of the Catholick Church qua â—ale as it is a Member for meer temporall respects Concedo omnia I grant the conclusion but if by breaking Ecclesiasticall Communion he understand deserting the Communion of a particular Church as it is erroneous and wherein it is erroneous his Conclusion is not pertinent to his purpose nor his six proofes pertinent to his conclusion But he might remember first that our Grounds by his own Confession do not all relate to temporall inconveniences but some of them to Eternity and Conscience and that they ought to be considered conjointly Secondly that we do not make these temporall Inconveniences to be irremediable we our selves have found out a Remedy and it is the same which he himself adviseth in this place to thrust out all entroachments and Vsurpations with the civill sword If they will grow Angry upon this and break Ecclesiasticall Communion themselves it is their Act not ours who have acted nothing who have declared nothing against any right of the Bishop of Rome divine or humane but onely against his encroachments and Vsurpations and particularly against his Coactive poweâ— in the Exteriour Court within the English Dominions They might take us to be not onely very tame Creatures but very stupid Creatures first to suffer them to entrench and encroach and usurp upon us dayly and theÌ„ to be able to perswade us to Isachars condition to undergoe our burthen with Patience like Asses because we may not break Ecclesiasticall Communion for temporall concernments We have done nothing but what we have good warrant for from the Lawes of God and nature let them suffer for it who either seperate from others without just cause or give others just cause to seperate from them In the next place followeth a large Panegyricall Oration iâ— the praise of Vnity of the Benefit and Necessity of it mixed with an Invective against us for breaking both the Bonds of Vnity The former of those considerations is altogether superfluous To praise Vnity which no man did ever dispraise but to his own perpetuall Disgrace The latter is a meer Taâ—tology or repetition of what he hath said before which I will not trouble the Reader withall but onely where I find some new weight added He saith wee acknowledge the Chnrch of Rome to be a true Church Right Metaphisically a true Church which hath the true essence and being of a Church but not Morally true or free from Errours He demands what is the certain Method to know the true sense of Scripture If he please to take so much paines to View my answer to Militier he may find both whom wee hold to be fit Expositors of Scripture and what is the right manner of expounding Scripture If he have any thing to say against it he shall have a faire hearing He telleth us that our best Champions Chillingworth and Falkland doe very candidly confesse that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely He citeth no place and I do not hold it worthy of a search whether they doe confesse it or not It is honour enough for them to have been genuine Sonnes of the English Church I hope they were so and men of rare parts whereof no man can doubt yet one of them was a Lay man it may be neither of them so deeply radicated in the right Faith of the English Church as many others But our chiefest Champions are those who stick closest to the Holy Scriptures interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith and the Perpetuall Tradition of the Vniversall Church but for that Assertion which you father upon them that we have no certainty of Faith but probability onely We detest it And when you or any other is pleased to make tryall You will find that we have as great assuraÌ„ce altogether for our faith as your selves have for your old Articles of faith and much more then you have for your new Articles He accuseth us for joining iu Communion with Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. And after he addeth Roman Catholicks Are not Huguenots Presbyterians in his Sense If they be why doth he disjoin them I know no reason why we should not admit Greeks and Lâ—â—herans to our Communion and if he had added them Armenians Abyssines Muscovites and all those who do professe the Apostolicall Creed as it is expounded by the first four Generall Councells under the Primitive Discipline and the Roman Catholicks also if they did not make their Errours to be a Condition of their Communion As for Adamites and Quakers we know not what they are and for Socinians we hold them worse then Arrians The Arrians made Christ to be a Secondary God erat quando non erat but the Socinians make him to be a meer creature And for Presbyterians what my Iudgement is he may find fully set down in my reply to the Bishop of Chalcedons Epistle But saith he every one of these hath a different head of the Church The English head is the King The Roman Catholick head is the Pope The Grecian head is the Patriarch The Presbyterian head is the Presbytery or Synod and the Lutheran head is the Parish Minister First for the Lutherans he doth them egregious wrong Throughout the Kingdomes of Denwark and Sweden they have theit Bishops name and thing and throughout Germany they have their Superintendents And to the rest I answer him that there are severall Heads of the Church Christ alone is the Spirituall head the Soveraign Prince the Politicall head the Ecclesiasticall head is a Generall Councell and under that each Patriarch in his Patriarchate and among the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome by a Priority of Order We who maintain the King to be the Politicall head of the English Church doe not deny the spirituall Headship of Christ nor the supreme power of the
hold out encroachments with the point of the sword without any medling with just right Other division then this which he himself hath allowed we believe our Ancestours intended none we hold none and so are accountable for none The main Question is whether the Britannick Churches were de facto subject to Rome or not I have demonstrated the contrary already that they were not and had alwaies their Ordinations at home But his Conclusion which he puts upon me that true complaints against Governours whether otherwise remediable or no are sufficient reasons to abolish that very Government is a vain assertion of his own no CoÌ„clusion of mine He starteth a Question here little to his own Credit whether he that mainteineth the Negative or he that mainteineth the Affirmative ought to prove He saith according to his old Pueriles that a Negative may be proved in Logick No man doubteth of it or denieth it Quis eâ—im potest negare I said on the Contrary that in this case which commeth here in difference between us according to the strict rules of Law the burthen to proue resteth onely on his side who affirmeth As the Question is here between us whether we had other Remedies then to make such a Reformation as we did We say No. They say Yea. It is possible to â—rove there might be other Remedies â—ut it is impossible to prove there were no â—ther Remedies Galen or Hippocrates himâ—elf would not have undertaken such a Taske to prove that there were no other Remedies for a disease then that which they used It is not for want of Logicall Forms that Negatives are not to be proved â—n matter of Fact but for want of sufficient Mediums He saith he is no Bowler and so â—nexpert as not to understand what is the soaling of a Bowle It may be it is true but if I should put him to prove this Negative it is impossible But so farre as a Negative of that nature is capable of proofe I did prove it by our Addresses to Popes and Councells and long expectation in vain that we had no other Remedy then that which we used to thrust out their Vsurpations by the power of the sword which course he himself adviseth and we practised The division is not made by them who thrust out Vsurpations but by them who brought them in and defend them I said that not onely our Ancestors but all Catholick Countries did maintein their own privileges inviolated and make themselves the last Iudges of their Grievances from the Court of Rome Hence he concludeth with open Mouth therefore there were other Remedies there needed no Division Alas poore man how he troubleth himself about nothing They and we used the very same Remedies the same that he adviseth in this place The Pope would not ease them upon many addresses made What then had not the King the Sword in his own hands Did it not lie in his power to right himself as he listed and to admit those pretended encroachments onely so far as he thought just and fitting Yes the King had the sword in his hands and did right him self and cast out those Papall Usurpatious so far as he found Iust and now when we have followed your own advise you call us Schismaticks and Dividers Sr. we are no Dividers but we have done our Duties and if we prove those things which we cast out to be Vsurpations as we have done you are the Schismaticks by your own Confession He pleadeth If Papall Authority be of Christs Institution then no just cause can possibly be given for its Abolishment Right But those Branches of Papall power which we have cast out are neyther of Christs Institution nor of Mans Institution but meer Vsurpations Neither doe we seek to abolish Papall Authority but to reform it from Accidentall Abuses and reduce it to its first Institution The best Institutions Divine or Humane may sometimes need such Reformation Here is nothing like proofe but his World of Witnesses and his Immemoriall Tradition presumed not proved To shew that no Nation suffred so much as England under the Tyranny of the Roman Court he saith I produce nothing but the pleasant saying of a certain Pope Well would he have a better witnesse against the Pope then the Pope him self Habemus confitentem reuÌ„ He was pleasant indeed but Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat VVhat hindereth that a man may net tell the truth laughing He asketh whether those Testimonies which I produce be Demonstrative or rigorous Evidences I thinke he would have me like the unskilfull Painter to write over the Heads of my Arguments This is a Demonstration It would become him better to refute them and shew that they are not Demonstrative then to trifle away the time with such frivolous Questions I shewed that England is not alone in the Seperation so long as all the Eastern Southern Northern and so great a part of the Western Church have seperated themselves from the Court of Rome and are seperated by them from the Church of Rome as well as we In answer to this he bids me shew that those I call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of Faith c. This is first to hang men up and then to examine their cause first to excommunicate four parts of five of the Christian world for their own Interests because they will not submit their necks to the Roman Yoke and embrace their upstart Vsurpations with as much Devotion as the genuine Legacies of Christ and his Apostles It behoved the Court of Rome to have weighed the case more maturely before they gave such a temerarious sentence against the much greater part of Christendome in so weighty a cause But for their rule of Faith they have a more certain and Authentick Rule then he himself by as much as the Apostles Creed is a more Authentick rule of Faith then Pius the fourths Creed and the Holy Scriptures a more infallible ground then particular supposititious Tradition which wanteth both Perpetuity and Vniversality I said that we desired to live in the peaceable Communion of the Catholick Church as well as our Ancestours as far as the Roman Court will give us leave He answereth that he knoweth very well we would be glad that the Church of Rome would own us for hers c That lack Straw or Wat Tiler after they had rebelled had no mind to be hanged That it is no Charity or Courtesy in us but a request of an unreasonable favour from them to admit us into their Communion and would be most absurd in Government c. Whether they hold us for theirs or not is not much materiall if they did it were the better for themselves if they doe not it is not the worse for us so as Christ own us for his it skilleth not much whether they say come ye blessed or goe ye cursed whether we be the wheat or Chaffe their tongues must not winnow us Although he snuffe at
When his Substance of Papall Authority hath lost all its extent which he gives every man leave to question it is an Indivisible indeed His second Exception is just such another I pleaded that I speake expresly of the Pope and Court of Rome He rejoineth No my Lord but I would not let you change â—he Subâ—ect of the whole Question If he will change my sense he must take the Contradiction upon himself These are the Common Rules of disputing with this great Dictatour in Logick I chanced to say that our Religion and theirs is the same He bids me answer seriously whether the Roman Religion and ours do not differ in this very point of the Popes Supremacy If the Roman Religion be the Christian Religion then our Religion is the same Every Difference in this point or another point doth not make a Diverse religion A Garden weeded and a Garden unweeded is the same Garden We esteem it an honour to be Christians and no Dishonour to us that we are no Papists what they think of us concerneth themselves not us We do gladly admit the old Apostolicall Rule of Religion but we like not their new Rules or new Creeds And we are ready for peace sake to attribute as much to the Pope as many of their own Doctors doe that is a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity and the not accepting of this renders them guilty of Schisme and breaking the Vnity of Gods Church He demandeth if these rigorous Assertions be not the Generall Tenet of their Church whom do we impugn We impugn the Pope and Court of Rome whose Tenets these Rigorous Assertions are upon which they grounded their manifold Vsurpations which we have cast out deservedly and for so doing they have excommunicated us and so broken the Vnity of the Church The substance of the Popes just Authority is no more then a Primacy of Order or beginning of Vnity at the most This we have not cast out And this Act we can justify by betier Logick then he can oppose it We know the Pope hath sometimes remitted of his rigour when he was not able to make good his sentence by force but it will trouble him to find one instance of a Pope who hath ever retracted his unjust censures out of pure Conscience or acknowledged his unjust Vsurpations Whether he did or no we do not much regard being done with an erring Key Many Millions of Christians are saved which are out of his Catholick world Next follow two heavy Contradictions able to make Miloes back crack with their weight Take them in his own words for they are even absurd enough without any Aggravavation The Bishop said that all Catholick Kings abetted by their Doctors and Casuists did resist the Pope in his Vsurpations but here to shew how some Doctors at sometimes escaped the Popes Clutches he saith that the Pope and his Court have something els to doe then to enquire afâ—er the Teneâ—s of private Doctors Why may not this grow to be a Contradiction in time It is no Conciliation already The other Contradiction is yet more silly I said perhaps some of those Doctors lived about the time of the Councells of Constance and Basile that is one Enuntiation what is the other Nay there is none at all of mine Yet he cryeth score up another self contradiction How A Contradiction of one Proposition A Contradiction with a Perhaps Such a Contradiction was never heard of in our dayes nor in the dayes of our Forefathers But though it be not a self Contradiction yet perhaps it may contradict the truth No truly it conâ—â—adicts the Truth no more then it self I will take away the perhaps to give him Line enough Some of the Opposers lived in this last Age Yet the Bishop saith some of them lived in the time of the Councells of Constance This is the first time that ever a Contradiction was pretended betwixt two particular Propositions such as these He saith that none can tell what I meane by their living out of the Popes reach I told him my self their being protected by Soveraign Power My lord the Emperour defend me with the Sword and I will defend the with the Penne. He saith what the Sorbon Doctors thought of the Court of Rome concerns not me nor the Question They ever valued the Popes Supremacy as a point of Faith for the not doing of which we are cast out of the Church He will find that it doth both concern me and the Question If the Court of Rome had not obtruded another manner of Supremacy then the Sorbon Doctors allowed this Schisme had never been For all the Popes Supremacy they radicated Ecclesiasticall power in the Church they subjected the Pope to the Church they made him no Soveraign Prince but a Duke of Venice lesse then the Senate that is lesse then a Generall Councell All that they allowed him was a beginning of Vnity where have we dissallowed that He accused Our bloudy Lawes and bloudier Execution I referred him to my Reply to the Bishop of Chalcedon where this Question is clearly stated and fully discussed and I expected an account from him of that he had to say against it solidly and fully but I see Omnibus hoc vitium est Cantoribus inter Amicos Vâ—nunquam inducant animum cantare rogatâ— Injussi nunquam desistant He delighteth altogether in Generalls and I love to have Controversies circumstantiated Qui pauca considerat facile pronuntiat I bring more then pretended Feares and Iealousies on our part to Iustify our Lawes even grosse treason by the Law of Nations on their parts He saith that in my 48. page I cleare their Religion from destroying Subjection to Princes All I say is this their Religion is the same with ours that is Christian and needeth not to be cleared from being a Source of Sedition or an Incentive to Rebellion Here is something to clear Christian Religion but not Popery qua talis as it is obtruded Well but he saith he will supply that defect I subsume But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us a point of Faith Therefore the holding of it is according to him no wayes injurious to Princes Observe Reader it is he subsumes not I so it is he that clears them qua tales as they are Papists not I. And how doth he clear them By a Syllogisme as memorable as his Contradictions His Assumption is But the Supremacy of the Pope is to us Roman Catholicks a point of Faith Therefore the holding of it is according to him the Bishop of Derry no wayes injurious to Princes Stay Sr. here is a Syllogisme with a witnesse which hath more in the ConclusioÌ„ then there was in the premisses namely according to him Who taâ—ght you this Logick to assume for yourself and Conclude for me Here he presents the Reader with two new Contradictions of mine as silly and senselesse as the rest They are these that I say the Instances cited by me were before the disloyall
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
of his own Patriarchate yet subordinate to a Generall Councell but in a Generall Councell or in the GovernmeÌ„t of the Catholick Church he is but one of the Optimates or a Fellow governour with other Bishops He saith it was never pretended by Catholicks that the Pope was the King of the Church I wonder that he is no betâ—er acquainted with the Sorbone disputes whether the Regiment of the Church be an absolute Monarchy tempered with an Aristocracy We have a Meritorious Sacrifice that is the Sacrifice of the Crosse We have a Commemorative and Applicative Sacrifice or a Commemoration and Application of that Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist A Suppletory Sacrifice to supply any want or defects in that Sacrifice he dare not owne and unlesse he do owne it he saith no more then we say What I spake of our Registers I intended principally of that Register of the right Ordination of Protestanâ— Bishops that he may see when he will for his love and have the Copy of any Act in it for his money but he had rather wrangle about it then take such paines if he will have a little Patience I will ease him of that Labour and Expences It is no insuperable difficulty nor any difficulty at all to us to find out that Catholick Church which we have in our Creed but to find out his Roman Catholick Church is both a Contradiction in adjecto and an Apple of Contention serving to commit him and his Friends together among themselves which he knoweth and therefore declineth it I called not the Ancient Bishop of Italy either Episcopelles or the Popes hungry Parasiticall Pensioners but the Flaâ—terers of the Roman Court and Principally those petty Bishops which were created during the Councell of Trent to serve the Popes turne If he think that Court free from such Moths he is much mistaken Neither are these expressions mine originally I learned them from the ancient Bishops of Italy themselves who gave them those very names of Episcopelles c. Neither did I taxe any man in particular He desires me to examine my Conscience whether I doe not get my living by preaching that Doctrine which I put in my Bookes which how many notorious Falsities Contradictions and Tergiversations they have in them may be judged by this present worke Yes if he and his merry Stationer may be my Iudges Now his worke is ended and answered I will make him a faire offer If he be able to make but one of all his Contradictions and Falsifications and absurdities good I will be reputed guilty of all the rest if he be not I desire him both to examine his own Conscience and Discretion what reward he deâ—erveth both at the hands of God and man for so many notorious Calumnies As for his Faults I shall rather leave them to the Iudgement of the Reader then trouble myself with the Recapitulation of them In the close of my Discourse I answered an exception of his that I cited Gerson against myself The words of Gerson or rather of the Eastern Church when they seperated from the Roman are these Potentiam tuam recognoscimus Avarâ—â—iam tuam implere non possumus Vivite per vos We know thy power we cannot satisfy thy Covetousnesse Live by yourselves They knew that he had a Patriarchall power and that he was the first or chiefe of the Patriarchs but this power we deny not that power which we deny is a Supremacy of single power and that by Christs own Ordination The Question is whether the Grecians did acknowledge such a power due to the Pope in these words That they did not I prove first by the practice of most of all the Eastern Churches who excommunicate the Pope yearly as a Schismatick for challenging this power Secondly I prove it by the Testimony of all their writers especially the modern Greeks as Hieremy and Cyrill the two succeeding Patriarchs of Constantinople and Nilus an Archbishop c. who all deny this power to the Pope in the name of the Greek Church Thirdly I prove it by his own confession in this very Chapter There is no one point produced by him which our Church lookes upon as a point of Faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Popes Supremacy How doe they grant the Popes Supremacy and deny the Popes Supremacy and yet continue the same without Variation as they have done I doe not say this is a Contradiction but let the Reader Iudge His reasons are mere Prevarications not reasons First here is no Opposition between power and covetousnesse unlesse he mean all Affirmatives and Negatives whatsoever be the Subjects or Predicates are Opposites and if they were it signifieth nothing Secondly he demands what power had the Pope over them except Spirituall Iurisdiction I answer he shewed them sufficiently at the Division of the Greek Empire and then they stood in need of his assistence against the Turke His third fourth and fifth Arguments may be reduced to one and when they are twisted they will not have the weight of one single haire The Difference was about undue Subsidâ—es and Taxes but the Demanding Subsidies seems incredible had there not been some preacknowledged power to ground such demands upon Yes there was his Protopatriarchall power and that tentered and stretched out to the uttermost extent and when he would have extended it yet higher the Grecians cast out his Vsurpations I see he doth but grope in the darke I will help him to some light Peter Steward upon Caleca tells him what these undue Subsidies and Exactions were when the Popes Legates brought yearly the Chrisme from the Apostolick See to Constantinople they would not depart from thence unlesse they had eighty pound weight of Gold besides other Gifts bestowed upon them Lastly he addeth Gerson concludes that upon this Consideration they might proceed to the Reformation of the French Churches notwithstanding the Contradiction which perhaps some of the Court of Rome would make which evidenceth that the acknowledgement of the Popes just power was reteined and encroachments on their Liberties onely denyed Concedo omnia His Protopatriarchall power was acknowledged his Soveraignty of Iurisdiction was denyed as an encroachment and this is the same Method which we observed in England And so Mr. Serjeant concludes his Rejoinder that the Bishop began like a Bowler and ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three Iust Mr. Serjeant just As your mind thinketh so the Bell clinketh If there be any of those Artificers here it is yourself whose constant Custome is to make holes where there are none and out of an eager desire of Contradicting others to plunge yourself irrecoverably into reall Contradiction With Scurrility you began this Rejoinder and with Scurrility you end it That which followeth is a Dish of thrice sodden Coleworts or a vain recapitulation of his own Imaginary Achievements which the Reader
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