Eginartus Chancellor to Charles the Great and who wrote his life say it was done by Charles the Great And so doth Rhegino who lived in the next age And accordingly in Duarenus de Benef lib. 1. cap. 9. among the Minorum Gentium Patriarchatus that of Grado is reckoned for one and joyned with Aquileia Canterbury and Bourges § 14. Frequent in the East And that it was a frequent usage in the East may appear by the 12 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon where we finde mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cities honoured by letters patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignity of Metropoles and where the Councel represses the ambition of Bishops which sought those privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Rescripts from the Emperours and censures it in them that so sought it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons repressing the ambition of the Bishops but not cassating the Rescripts nor withdrawing the honour from the Metropolis so erected Of this Canon Balsamon saith that when it was made many Emperours had erected many Metropolitanes and naming three adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that other Bishopricks were thus honoured and that the Emperours did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power that was given them Where it is farther to be observed 1. that this Councel was within 20 years after that grant of Valentinian and consequently if Balsamon say right that at that time many Emperours had erected many there must needs be others before Valentinian 2. That the 17 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a city be built or restored by the Kings power let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Councel in Trullo Can 38. And then 3. that these two last Canons are reconciled with that 12 th of Chalcedon by the law of Alexius Comnenus and assented to by the Synod under him See Balsam in Can 38. Concil in Trullo who concludes that the King might doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon his own incitation or motion but it should not be lawful for any by base sollicitation to seek or obtain it adding that in that case upon any such Rescript of the Emperour for such erection it might be lawful for the Patriarch to suspend the confirmation of the Charter untill he represented to the Emperour what the Canons were in that case and understood if the Emperour did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his own motion which appearing the Patriarch was to admit thereof And accordingly the same Balsamon on Concil Carthag Can 16. doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis and anew to constitute Bishops and Metropolitanes § 15. So also to translate As for the transplanting it also from one city to another besides that the power of doing that is consequent to the former the examples of this practise are antient Examples in England Concil Angl p. 26. and frequent in this kingdome The passage set down out of the Annals of Gisburne may be sufficient From Caeruske the Metropolitan seat was translated to S. Davids by King Arthur where it continued till Henry I. and then was reduced to Canterbury § 16. In like manner 't is evident that the Kings of England have divided Bishopricks and erected new ones About the year 630. Kinigilsa King of the West-Saxons and Oswald of the Northumbers erected an Episcopal See at Dorchester and placed Birinus in it so saith Guil Malmesb de Gest Pontif Angl l. 2. About the year 660 Kenewalch King of the West-Saxons divided this Bishoprick and left part to Dorchester and assigned the western part to be the Diocese of the new Bishop which he constituted at Winchester so saith Hen Huntingd Hist l. 3. Then Winchester was subdivided in the time of King Ina who also erected a new Bishoprick at Sherburne and gave it to Aldelme so Henr Huntingd l. 4. and Guil Malm de Reg Angl l. 1. c. 2. And after the Norman conquest Henry I. divided Cambridgeshire from the See of Lincolne and erected the Bishoprick of Elie so saith Guiliel Malm de Gest Pontif Angl l. 4. and Florentius Wigorn Anno 1109. who lived at that time So also saith Eadmer with some variation Regi Archiepiscopo caeterÃsque Principibus regni visum fuit de ipsâ Parochiâ Lincolniae sumendum quo fieret alter Episcopatus cujus cathedra Principatus poneretur in Abbatiâ de Eli It seemed good to the King the Archbishop and the rest of the Princes of the kingdome to take as much out of the Diocese of Lincolne as would make another Bishoprick the chair whereof should be set up in the Abbacie of Elie. Adding indeed that Anselme a zealous promoter of the Papal authority as the author Eadmer was a disciple and admirer of Anselme wrote to Pope Paschalis desiring his consent to it as a thing fit to be done and yet to which he assures him he would not give his consent but salvâ authoritate Papae reserving the rights of the Pope Which though it doth suppose the Popes pretensions to that authority at that time and Anselm's yeilding it to him yet it proves also this right of our Kings to have been even then adhered to preserved and exercised by them as the former authors had set it down § 17. So to exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction Of this nature also is the authority of Kings in exempting any Ecclesiastical person from the Bishops Jurisdiction and granting Episcopal Jurisdiction to such person which is largely asserted and exemplified in Cawdries case 5. Report 14. One instance of this will serve for all that of William the Conqueror who exempted Battel Abbey in Sussex from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chichester and gave the Abbat Episcopal Jurisdiction in his Territorie and the words of the Charter are produced by M r Selden on Eadmer Hoc regali authoritate Episcoporum ac Baronum meorum attestatione constituo I appoint this by my royal authority by the attestation of my Bishops and Barons § 18. Kings Founders of Bishopricks and Patrons Adde even unto this that even the Westerne Princes in those parts where the Bishops of Rome have much hightned their power ever since the Kings were Christians the German Emperours the Kings of France and England alwayes claimed to be founders of all Bishopricks in their Dominions Patrons of them to bestow them by investiture that the Kings of France and England often claimed and were acknowledged to have right that no Legate from Rome might come into the Land and use jurisdiction without their leave All which put together are a foundation for this power of the Princes to erect or translate a Patriarchate It being withall acknowledged that
out of this Island The Praemunire and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will and choice but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the fear being the occasion of their debates but the reasons or arguments offered in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision § 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsly determined then the voluntarinesse or freenesse of the determination will not be able to justifie it and on the other side if the determination were just then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling to doe it And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII the Bishop of Rome were supreme head or Governour of this Church of England or had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other viz to the Archbishop of Canterbury if he pleased § 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid and confirmed to have truth in them For the pretensions for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three either in his right as S. Peter's successour to the Vniversal Pastorship that including his power over England as a member of the whole or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope and his successours that sent him or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings the two former of these have been largely disproved already Chap. 4 5 and 6. in discourses purposely and distinctly applied to those pretensions The concession of Kings And for the third that will appear to have received its determination also I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes to which purpose I shall mention but one passage that of †in Goldast de Mon G. de Heimburg some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust Vsurp Pap where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope he saith that this is a submission in him and a patience above what any other suffers and proves it by this argument Nam eximius Rex Angliae Franciae Dux Marchio non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis quà m quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur The King of England and France any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decretals fabulously invented so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates and will be farther confirmed in the Negative if answer be first given to this Dilemma § 8. A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings was either so originally vested in our Kings that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased pleased and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings If it were not then was that grant an invalid null grant for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give presumptions invasions robberies in the giver which devolve no right to the receiver and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellour or any other of his officers from his place and commit it to another this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in the Book by them intituled The Institution of a Christian man Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King then is the King's power diminished and he consequently by this his act of which we treat become lesse a King then formerly he was And then we know that such acts which make him so are invalid acts it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power § 9. Two sorts of gifts To which purpose it must be observed 1. that some things are so ours that we may freely use them but cannot freely part with them as all those things wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons but intailed on our posterity and such the regal power is supposed to be 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties are so freely ours to give that when they are given they are departed out of our selves and cannot justly be by us resumed again in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good data eo ipso qu◠dantur fiunt accipientis what is given by the very act of being given becomes the goods of the receiver so other things are given to others so as we doe not part with them our selves they are as truly and properly ours after as before the Concession § 10. Some revocable Thus the Sun communicates his beams and with them his warmth and influences and yet retains all which it thus communicates and accordingly withdraweth them again And God the spring of all life and grace doth so communicate each of these that he may and doth freely withdraw them again and when he taketh away our breath we die And thus certainly the King being the fountain of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall
our Kings have the same authority in their Territories that the Roman Emperour had in the Empire § 19. The Reason of all supreme power of Kings And the reason of all this is clear not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of causes even those of the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is as it were the common directer and ruler of the Church both in title and reality Demetrii Chomateni Resp ad Const Cab Jur. Graec Rom l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted overseer or Bishop by God saith Constantine the Great in an assembly of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am King and Priest saith Leo Isaurus to Gregory the second Nec tamen eo nomine à Pontifice reprehenditur and was not for this reprehended by the Pope see J. C. de lib. Eccl ap Goldast Monarch t. 1. p. 686. So Socrates the historian of the Emperours in general after their receiving the faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the affairs of the Church depended on them in Prooem l. 5. And by Optatus l. 2. it is noted and censured as a Schismatical piece of language in the Donatistâ— Quid enim Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ And all this according to the principles of civil policy acknowledged by Aristotle Pol. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King hath power of those things that belong to the Gods and by Diotogenes in Sâ—obaeus that a perfect King ought to be both a good Captain and a Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and a Priest also And accordingly among the ancient Roman regal Lawes this is one Sacrorum omniuÌ„ potestas sub Regibus esto Let the power of all sacred things be under the Kings and so in the practice Caius Caesar in Suetonius c. 13. was both Augur and Summus Pontifex Galba tres Pontificatus gerebat Ibid Gal. c. 8. Claudius is by Josephus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest High-priest and Tacitus makes it his observation Deûm nunc munere summum Pontificem summum hominum esse Annal l. 3. The same appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the temple Hezekiah 2 Chron 29. 2 Kin 18. and Josiah 2 Kin 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so S. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar see G de Heimberg de usurp Pap so in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of Justinians i. e. the Emperours constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men and sacred offices And the Canons of Councels have mostly been set out and received their authority by the Emperours and accordingly in the Theodosian Code we shall find many of those which are now called Papal decrees Church as well as Civil as might be proved at large if here it were needful and cannot be reasonably so confined as not to belong to a matter of this nature but peculiarly from that which hath been already noted and expressely ordered Can. 17. of the Councel of Chalcedon even now cited of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces c and Ecclesiastical division of Provinces following the Civil following the civil For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes where he please and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles and divisions of Provinces as Strabo saith Geogr. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Provinces are variously distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Romanes divide them not by tribes or families but after another manner in relation to the cities where they set up their courts of Assizes and again it being most reasonable that as any new accident raises one city to a greater populousnesse or depresses another so for the convenience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature the other cease to be so and no man so fit to passe the judgement when this should be as the King and 3. the very same reasons of convenience moving in the Church as in the State the Bishops and over them Metropolitanes and Primates having their judicatures and audiences which in all reason must be so disposed of as may be most for the convenience of administration that they and all under them may do their duties with most facility and to greatest advantage and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary constitution either of Christ or his Apostles against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or interpretatively as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peters universal Pastorship whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes the Conclusion is rational as well as evident just that it should be so as well as cleare that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure that the King may erect a Primacy when he please and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustines planting the faith did at Canterbury the seate of his Kingdome Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25. conquently remove it from any other place at his pleasure Had it not been for this there is no reason assignable why this nation being in Constantines time under three Metropolitans the Arch-bishop of York and the Primacy belonging to that city as being then the Emperours seat where Septimius Severus and Constantius Chlorus died and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britannie the Arch-bishop of London and the Arch-bishop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire either 1. there should be as there was an addition of two Provinces more Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury as also from Caerusk to S. David's as hath been said and the Primacie from Yorke to Canterbury § 20. This Power of Kings if taken away by forein laws c. resumable Now what is thus vested in the Regal power cannot be taken away by forein laws or by prescription be so alienated but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to resume it sect 21. That laws made at Rome doe not take away the liberty of another national Church to make contrary laws thereunto and that by such obviation no Schisme is incurred we finde delivered in the Councel of Carthage Can 71. according to Balsamon's division And though the Canon be not set down by Binius yet both he and Baronius acknowledge that what was contain'd in that particular Canon was the main occasion of the Synod And the Antiquity thereof is considerable those Canons being made say Baronius and Binius Anno 401. § 22. So likewise that a Law though made by a General Councel and with the consent of all Christian Princes yet