hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title 'T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing nowinsisted on 2. 'T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King's Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory's Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. 'T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory's Grant nor that King's Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England's Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine's possession of so small a part 4. 'T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine's Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John's endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope's Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope's Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council thought the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane
to the Authentick History and more undoubted practises of those Times we read saith the Primate of many Legates but certainly they were either no Papal Legates or Papal Legates in those days were but ordinary Messengers and pretended not to any Legantine Power as it is now understood for we read so much as any one act of Jurisdiction done by them and firmly conclude thence that there Pall. was none Obj. But R. C. saith St. Sampson had a Pall from Rome Sol. He had a Pall but t is not proved that he had it from Rome 't is Certain Arch-Bishops and Patriachs in the Primitive times had Palls which they received not from Rome Besides if he did receive that Pall from Rome in all probability it was after the first six Itin. Cam. p. 1. c. 1. hundred years If either according to Cambrensis he was the five and twentieth Arch-Bishop after St. David or according to Hoveden the R. Hoved. an 1199. four and twentieth and then 't is nothing to our present question Obj. St. Gregory granted to Austin the use of the Pall saith R. C. the proper badg and sign of Archiepiscopal dignity and gave him liberty to Pall. ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction as Arch Bishop of Canterbury Sol. This was done at the end of the first six hundred years and therefore not to our present question However if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Christianity among the Brittains as they say it was very Christianly done of St. Gregory to send Augustine to convert and re-establish the Church among them but none can imagine that by receiving Augustine and his Bishops they intended to submit themselves and Posterity to the See of Rome which when pressed before the Brittains so unanimously rejected Neither indeed could they do it to the prejudice of the ancient Primacy of the Brittains existing long before and confirmed in its independency upon any foreign power For Bede himself as well as all our own Historians makes it most evident that the Brittains had Bishops long before We find the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles Eborius of York Restitutus of London and Adelfius de Civitate Coloniae Lond. and from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod and the Council of Ariminum as appears by Athanasius and others and that they had also an Arch-Bishop or Primate whose ancient seat had been at Caerleon who rejected the Papacy then possessing and defending the priviledge of their freedom from any foreign Jurisdiction This their priviledge was secured to them both by the Nicene Calcedonian and Ephesian Councils Contrary to these Councils if the Pope did intend to give Augustine the primacy over the Brittains it was a plain usurpation Certainly the priviledges of the Brittannick Church returned with its Christianity neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin or he to Gregory Besides Lastly 't is not possible any sober man can imagine that that humble and holy Pope St. Gregory who so much detested if in earnest the very Title of Vniversal Bishop should actually invade the priviledge of the Brittains and If in earnest hazard his own Salvation in his own Judgment when he so charitably designed the Conversion of England by sending Austin hither Obj. T. C. saith it appears that Brittain was anciently subject to the See of Rome For Wilfred Arch-Bishop of York appealed to Rome twice and was twice restored to his Bishoprick Wilfred An. 673. Sol. We see when this was done Seventy and three years after the first six hundred An. 673 He appealed indeed but was still rejected notwithstanding the sentence of Rome in his favour for six years together during the Reigns of King Egbert and Alfrid his Son so far is this instance from being a proof of the Popes possession here at that time Yet this is the most famous saith my Lord Bramhall I had almost said the only Appellant from England to Rome that we read of before the Conquest Moreover the Answer of King Alfred to the Alfred spel conc an 705. Popes Nuncio sent hither by the Pope on purpose is very remarkable He told him he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honourable Aspects but he could not give any assent to their Legation because it was against reason that a Person twice Condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter At this time it is apparent neither the Kings of England nor the Councils of English Church-men as my Lord Branihall expresseth it two Kings successively and the great Councils of the Kingdom and the other Arch-Bishop Theodore with all the prime Ecclesiasticks and the Flower of the English Clergy opposing so many Sentences and Messages from Rome did believe that England was under the Jurisdiction of Rome or ought to be so Yea the King and the Church after Alfred's After Alfred death still made good this Conclusion that it was against Reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English should be restored upon the Popes Bull. Malmsoury would suggest that the King and the Arch-Bishop Theodore were smitten with remorse before their deaths for the injury done to Wilfred c. But not the King only but the whole Council not Theodore alone but the whole Clergy opposed the Popes Letter which is enough both to render the dream of Malmsbury a ridiculous Fable and for ever to confirm this truth that England was not then viz. in the six hundred seventy and third Year of Christ under the Jurisdiction of the Pope either actually or in the belief of the Church or Kingdom of England The Latter viz. the non-possession of our belief of the Popes universal Jurisdiction which is so much insisted upon by the Romanists will yet more evidently appear by that which followeth SECT II. No Possession of our Belief ancient VVE have found the Brittains by the good Abbot and two several Synods Not in England we have found the State of England in three successive Kings their great Councils and body of the Clergy refused to yield Obedience both to the Popes Persuasions Injunctions Sentences and Legates Therefore it seems impossible that Brittain or England should then believe either the Popes Infallibility or their obligation to his Jurisdiction or that there was any such thing as the Tradition of either delivered to them by their Ancestors or believed among them Indeed by this one Argument those four great Characters of the Papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever viz. Possession Tradition Infallibility and Antiquity I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland Nor in Scotland Math. Par. in H. 3. an 1238. too that other great part of our Kings dominions When the Popes Legate more than twice six hundred years after Christ viz. about 1238. entred Scotland to visit the Churches there Alexander the second then King of the Scots forbad him so to
Ancient Possession is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical Good Night S. W. Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tractu temporis non Convalescit is a Rule in the Civil Law Yea whatever Possession the Pope got afterwards was not only an illegal Vsurpation but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus and thereby Condemned as Schismatical CHAP. VII The Pope had not full Possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in Augustine 's Time II. Nor After T Is boldly pleaded that the Pope had Possession of the Supremacy in England for nine hundred years together from Augustine till Hen. 8. And no King on Earth hath so long and so clear prescription for his Crown To which we answer 1. That he had not such Possession 2. If he had 't is no Argument of a jus Title SECT I. Not in Austin 's Time State of Supremacy questioned VVE shall consider the Popes Supremacy here as it stood in and near St. Augustine's time and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8. 1. We have not found hitherto that in or about the time of Augustine Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Pope had any such power in England as is pretended Indeed he came from Rome but he brought no Mandate with him and when he was come he did nothing without the King's licence at his arrival he petitions the King the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet till his further pleasure was known he obeyed afterward the King gave him licence to preach to Bed l. 1. c. 25. his Subjects and when he was himself converted majorem pradicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed Iargly to subject all the Priests of Brittain under Augustine and to give him power to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but 't is one thing to claim another thing to possess for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King who had not the twentieth part of Brittain and it appears that after both Saint Gregory and Austine were dead there were but one Arch bishop and two Bishops throughout the Brittish Islands of the Roman Communion Indeed the Brittish and Scotch Bishops were Bed l. 2. c. 2 c. 4. many but they renounced all Communion with Rome as appeared before We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over Preachers his commending sometimes Arch-Bishops when desired to us his directions to fill up vacant Sees all which and such like were Acts of Charity becoming so eminent a Prelate in the Catholick Church but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy 'T is possible Saint Milet as is urged might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed and that they were worthy of our acceptance and were accepted accordingly but 't is certain and will afterwards appear to be so that such Decrees were never of force here further than they were allowed by the King and Kingdom 'T is not denied but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates and Bulls too yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of neither were the Legates themselves or those Bulls of any Authority without the King's Consent Some would argue from the great and flattering Titles that were antiently given to the Pope but sure such Titles can never signifie Possession or Power which at the same time and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles was really and indeed denied him But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedon hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. the Pope and the King of England in which such things are not all concerned The plain question is who was then the Political Head of the Church of England the King or the Pope or more immediately whether the Pope then had possession of the Supremacy here in such things as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation and the Pope still challengeth and they are such as these 1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes 2. A Dispensative Power above and against the Laws of the Church 3. A liberty to send Legates and to hold Legantine Courts in England without Licence 4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects 5. The Patronage of the English Church and Investitures of Bishops with power to impose Oaths upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance 6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical Livings and a power to impose upon them what Pensions or other Burthens he pleaseth 7. The Goods of Clergy-men dying Intestate These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England and our Kings and Laws and Customs deny him as will appear afterwards in due place for this place 't is enough to observe that we find no foot-steps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England in or about Augustine's time As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeal it hath appeared before that it being rejected by two Kings successively by the other Arch-Bishop and by the whole Body of the English Clergy sure 't is no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time and needs no further answer SECT II. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. Eight Distinctions the Question stated IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early yet for many Ages together they were sound in his Possession and so continued without interruption till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope and possest himself and his Successors of them Whether it were so or not we are now to examine and least we should be deceived with Colours and generalities we must distinguish carefully 1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity and Supremacy of Power the only thing disputed 2. Betwixt a Judgment of direction resulting from the said Primacy and a Judgment of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy 3. Betwixt things claimed and things granted and possessed 4. Betwixt things possessed continually or for sometime only 5. Betwixt Possession partial and of some lesser Branches and plenary or of the main body of Jurisdiction 6. Betwixt things permitted of curtesie and things granted out of duty 7. Betwixt incroachment through craft or power or interest or the temporary Ossitancy of the People and Power grounded in the Laws enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace 8. Lastly betwixt quiet possession and interrupted These Distinctions may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary but I find there is need of them all if we deal with a subtle one For the Question is not touching Primacy in the Bishop of Rome or an acknowledged Judgment of direction flowing from it or a claim of Jurisdiction which is no Possession
Danish Kings without any dependance on the Pope did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws Witness the laws of Excombert Ina Withred Alfrede Edward Athelstan Edmond Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor among which Laws one makes it the Office of a King to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God Indeed at last the Pope was officiously kind and did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of those Kings Edward the Confessor a Priviledge which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots But with thanks to his Holiness our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning in the right of the Crown without respect to his curtesie in that matter After the Conquest our Norman Kings did also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical After Conquest Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices Tythes Advowsons Lands given in Mortmain Prohibitions Consultations Praemunires quare impedits Priviledge of the Clergy Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers Regulation of Fees Wages of Priests Mortuaries Sanctuaries Appropriations and in sum as Bishop Bramhall adds All things which did belong to the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73. But what Laws do we find of the Popes making in England or what English-Law hath he ever effectually abrogated 'T is true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed but before they became obliging or had the force of Laws the King had power in his great Council to receive them if they were judged convenient or if otherwise to reject them 'T is a notable instance that we have of this in Ed. 3. time When some Bishops proposed 20 Ed. 3. c. 9. in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the legitimation of Children born before Marriage all the Peers of the Realm stood up and cried out with one voice Nolumus leges Angliae mutari we will not have the Laws of England to be changed A clear evidence that the Popes Canons were not English Laws and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so without the Parliament Likewise the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition of the Canon of the Council of Lions concerning Bigamy which they would 4 Ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England either to receive it or reject it These are plain and undeniable evidences that when Popery was at highest the Popes Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual without the countenance of a greater and more powerful viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings Obj. Now admit that during some little space the Pope did impose and England did consent to the authority of his Canons as indeed the very Consent admitted rejecting of that authority intimates yet that is very short of the Possession of it without interruption for nine hundred years together the contrary being more than evident However this Consent was given either by By Permission Permission or Grant If only by Permission whether through Fear or Reverence or Convenience it signifies nothing when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties and resolve to endure it no longer If a Grant be pretended 't was either from Or by Grant the King alone or joyned with his Parliament If from the King alone he could grant it for his time only and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors accompanies the Crown of the Successor and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it I believe none will undertake to affirm that the Grant was made by the Law or the King with his Parliament Yet if this should be said and proved too it would argue very little to the purpose for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law The Kings Prerogative as Head of this Church lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom the foundation of our common Law and in the very Law of Nature and is no more at the will of the Parliament than the fundamental liberties of the Subject Lastly the same Power that makes can repeal a Law if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged and ratified by Parliament which cannot be said 't is most certain it was revoked and renounced by an equal Power viz. of Henry the Eighth and the whole Body of the Kingdom both Civil and Ecclesiastical It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power but that for the Publick good it may revoke any Concessions Permissions or Priviledges thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign when reciting the Statute of Edward the First they say the Statute holdeth alway his force and that the King is bound by Oath to cause the same to be kept and consequently if taken away to be restored to its Observation as the Law of the Land that is the Common Fundamental unalterable Law of the Land Besides the Case is most clear that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical were not altered or repealed and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Incroachments and not against but according to the Statute as well as the Common Law of the Land witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire which as my Lord Bramhall saith we may truly call 25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulph of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. CHAP. XI Of the Power of Licences c. here in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7. THough the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England yet if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power that will have the effect of Laws and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws in Ecclesiastical Causes and upon Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is confest the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth by his Licences Dispensations Impositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies and other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same
Roma Ruit THE PILLARS OF ROME Broken WHEREIN All the several Pleas for the Pope's Authority in England with all the Material Defences of them as they have been urged by Romanists from the beginning of our Reformation to this day are Revised and Answered To which is Subjoyned A Seasonable Alarm to all Sorts of Englishmen against Popery both from their Oaths and their Interests By Fr. Fullwood D. D. Arch-Deacon of Totnes in Devon LONDON Printed for Richard Royston Bookseller to His Most Sacred Majesty MDCLXXIX REVERENDISSIMO In Christo Patri GULIELMO Archiepiscopo CANTUARIENSI Totius ANGLIAE PRIMATI Regiae Serenissimae Majestatis à Sanctioribus Conciliis FRANCISCVS FVLLWOOD Olim Collegii EMANUEL Apud CANTABRIGIENSES Librum hunc humillimè D. D. D. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND Father in God GEORGE Lord Bishop of WINTON Prelate of the Most Noble Order of the GARTER My very good Lord BLessed be God that I have Survived this Labour which I once feared I should have sunk under and that I live to publish my Endeavours once more in the Service of the Church of England and thereby have obtained my wish'd opportunity to dedicate a Monument of my deep Sence of your Lordship's manifold obligations upon me In particular I rejoyce in the acknowledgment that I ow my Publick Station next under God and His Sacred Majesty to your Lordship's Assistance and Sole Interest though I cannot think so much out of kindness to my Person then altogether unknown to your Lordship as affection and care of the Church grounded in a great and pious intention however the object be esteem'd truly worthy of so Renowned a Prelate and many other waies excellent and admired Patriot of the Church of England If either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakning the Bulworks of Non-Conformity or my present Essay may succeed in any measure to evince or confirm the Truth in this greater Controversie I am happy that as God hath some glory and the Church some advantage so some honour redounds upon your Lordship who with a virtuous design gave me a Capacity at first and ever since have quickned and animated my Endeavours in those Services I may be permitted to name our Controversie with the Church of Rome the great Controversie For having been exercised in all the sorts of Controversie with Adversaries on the other hand I have found that all of them put together are not considerable either for weight of matter or copiousness of Learning or for Art Strength or Number of Adversaries in comparison of this It takes in the Length of time the Breadth of place and is managed with the Heighth of Wit and Depth of Subtlety the Hills are covered with the Shadow of it and its Boughs are like the goodly Cedars My Essay in these Treatises is to shorten and clear the way and therefore though I must run with it through all time I have reduc'd the place and removed the Wit and Subtleties that would impede our progress I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches and swelling excrescencies to lay aside all personal reflections captious advantages Sophistical and Sarcastical Wit and to set the Arguments on both sides free from the darkness of all kind of cunning either of escape or reply in their plain light and proper strength as also to confine the Controversie as near as I can within the bounds of our own Concern i. e. our own Church And when this is done the plain and naked truth is that the meanest of our other Adversaries I had almost said the silly Quaker himself seems to me to have better Grounds and more like Christian than the glorious Cause of the Papacy But to draw a little nearer to our Point your Lordship cannot but observe that one end of the Roman Compass is ever fixed upon the same Center and the summ of their clamour is our disobedience to the See of Rome Our defense stands upon a twofold Exception 1. Against the Authority 2. Against the Laws of Rome and if either be justified we are innocent The first Exception and the defence of our Church against the Authority of that See is the matter of this Treatise the second is reserved I have determined that all the Arguments for the Pope's Authority in England are reduceable to a five-fold Plea the Right of Conversion as our Apostle the Right of a Patriarch the Right of Infallibility the Right of Prescription and the Right of Universal Pastorship the Examination of them carries us through our Work Verily to my knowledge I have omitted nothing Argumentative of any one of these Pleas yea I have considered all those little inconsiderable things which I find any Romanists seem to make much of But indeed their pretended Right of possession in England and the Universal Pastorship to which they adhere as their surest holds have my most intended and greatest strength and care and dilligence that nothing material or seemingly so might escape either unobserved or not fully answered let not the contrary be said but shewn I have further laboured to contract the Controversie two ways 1. By a very careful as well as large and I hope as clear state of the question in my definition and discourse of Schism at the beginning whereby mistakes may be prevented and much of matter disputed by others excluded 2. By waving the dispute of such things as have no influence into the Conclusion and according to my use giving as many and as large Concessions to the Adversary as our Cause will suffer Now my end being favourably understood I hope there is no need to ask your Lordships or any others pardon for that I have chosen not to dispute two great things 1. That in the Words tu es Petrus super hanc Petram there is intended some respect peculiar to saint Peter's Person it is generally acknowledged by the most learned Defenders of our Church that Saint Peter had a Primacy of Order and your Lordship well knows that many of the Ancient Fathers have expressed as much and I intend no more 2. That Tradition may be Infallible or indefectible in the delivery of the Essentials of Religion for ought we know By the Essentials we mean no more but the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Decalogue and the two Sacraments in this I have my Second and my Reason too for then Rushworth's Dialogues and the new Methods of Roman opposition need not trouble us My good Lord it is high time to beg your Pardon that I have reason to conclude with an excuse for a long Epistle the truth is I thought my self accountable to your Lordship for a Brief of the Book that took its being from your Lordship's Encouragement and the rather because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good Old Age should perplex it self with Controversie which the Good God continue long and happy to the honour of his Church on Earth and then crown with the Glory of Heaven It is the
is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times must
differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Fathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in sid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2. Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church And as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observés which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction and will
Succession except their own and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion as the great aggravation of their Schism they Challenge a temporal Power over Princes either directly or indirectly Thus their Charge against us is Disobedience Our Charge against them is Usurpation and abuse of Power If we owe no such Obedience or if we have cause not to obey we are acquitted If the Pope have both power and reason of his side we are guilty If he fail in either the whole weight of Schism with all its dreadful Consequences remains upon him or the Court of Rome The Conclusion TThus we see the Controversie is broken into two great points 1. Touching the Papal Authority in England 2. Touching the Cause of our denying Communion in some things with the Church of Rome required by that Authority Each of these I design to be the matter of a distinct Treatise This first Book therefore is to try the Title The Sum of this first Treatise betwixt the Pope and the Church of England Wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the Pleas and Evidences produced and urged by Romanists on their Masters behalf and shew how they are answered and where there appears greatest weight and stress of Argument we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence Omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other Now to our Work CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments Proposed and briefly reflected on THis is their Goliah and indeed their whole Army if we rout them here the day is our own and we shall find nothing more to oppose us but Skirmishes of Wit or when they are at their Wits end fraud and force as I am troubled to observe their Use hath been For if the See of Rome hath no just claim or Title to govern us we cannot be obliged to obey it and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world We are no Schismaticks though we deny obedience to the See of Rome seeing it cannot justly challenge it 2dly Though we were so yet the See of Rome hath no power to censure us that hath no power to govern us And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude that the Papal Authority that hath nothing to do with the English Church and yet rigorously exacts our obedience and censures us for our disobedience is highly guilty both of Ambition in its unjust claim and of Tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power as well in her Commands as Censures which is certainly Schism and aliquid ampliùs They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim without which they know they can never hope either to gain us or secure themselves I find five several Titles pretended though methinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock 1. The Pope being the means of our first Conversion as they say did thereby acquire a Right 1. Conversion for himself and successors to govern this Church 2. England belongs to the Western Patriarchate 2. Patriarch and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West as they would have it 3. Others found his Right in Prescription and 3. Prescription long continued possession before the Reformation 4. Others flee much higher and derive this power of Government from the Infallibility of 4. Infallibility the Governor and indeed who would not be led by an unerring Guide 5. But their strong hold to which at last resort 5. Succession is still made is the Popes Vniversal Pastorship as Successor to St. Peter and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only but of the whole Christian World Before we enter upon trial of these severally we shall briefly note that where there are many Titles pretended Right is justly suspected especially if the Pretences be inconsistent 1. Now how can the Pope as the Western Patriarch or as our first Converâ—â—r pretend to be our Governor and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop These some of our suttlest Adversaries know to imply a contradiction and to destroy one another 2. At first sight therefore there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship to wave the Arguments either from the Right of Conversion or the Western Patriarchate or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these he may not think the Chair of St. Peter shall be his Sanctuary at a dead lift 3. Also for Possession what need that be pleaded if the Right be evident Possession of a part if the Right be universal unless by England the Pope took livery and Seisen for the whole world Besides if this be a good plea it is as good for us we have it and have had it time out of mind if ours have not been quiet so neither was theirs before the Reformation 4. For Infallibility that 's but a Qualification no Commission Fitness sure gives no Authority nor desert a Title and that by their own Law otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs are as good and lawful Bishops as any the Church of Rome hath Thus we see where the Burthen will rest at last and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold One great thing concerns them to make sure or all is lost the whole Controversir is tied to St. Peters Chair the Supremacy of the Pope must be maintained or the Roman and Catholick are severed as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome and a great breach is made indeed but we are not found the Schismaticks But this is beside my task Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach all the said five Pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly examined and the main Arguments and Answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as I can produced And where the Controuersie sticks and how it stands at this day noted as before we promised CHAP. III. Of the Popes Claim to England from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory THis Argument is not pressed with much confidence in Print though with very much in Discourse to my own knowledge Perhaps 't is rather popular and plausible than invincible Besides it stands in barr against the Right of St. Peter which they say was good near six hundred years before and extends to very many Churches that received grace neither by the means of St. Peter or his pretender Successor except they plead a right to the whole Church first and to a part afterwards or one kind of right to the whole and another to a part The truth is if any learned Romanist shall insist on this Argument in earnest he is strongly suspected either to deny or question the Right of St. Peter's Successor as
universal Pastor But we leave these advantages to give the argument its full liberty and we shall soon see either its Arms or its Heels The Argument must run thus If the Bishop of Rome was the means of the English Churches Conversion then the English Church oweth obedience to him and his Successors We deny both propositions The Minor that the Pope was the means of our first Conversion and the consequence of the Major that if he had been so it would not follow that we now owe obedience to that See For the Minor Bishop Jewel knock'd it down so perfectly at first it was never able to stand since he saith it is certain the Church of Britain We were converted 9 years before Rome Baron An. 35. n. 5. Marg. An. 39. n. 23. Suarez c. 1. 1 Contr. Angl. Eccl. Error now called England received not first the Faith from Rome The Romanists proof is his bare assertion that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britains and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than an hundred years after Christs death Bishop Jewel answers that King Lucius was baptized near 150 years before the Emperor Constantine and the same Constantine the first Christian Emperor was born in this Island and the Faith had been planted here long before either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes or the Greeks or some others which is plain because the King being Christian before requested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those Persons Damianus and Fugatius to Reform the Bishops and Clergy which were here before and to put things into better Order They also urged that as Pope Elutherius in Britain So Saint Gregory in England first planted the Faith by Austin But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this Argument out of Countenance plainly proving out An. 210. An. 212. An. 334. An. 360. An. 400. An. 367. of Tertullian Origen Athanasius Const Emp. Chrisost Theod. that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither See his Defence of his Apol. p. 11. Some would reply that the Faith was utterly rooted out again upon the Invasion of Heathen English 't was not so saith he for Lib. 1. c. 26. lib. 2. c. 2. Beda saith that the Queen of England was christened and that there were then in this Realm Seven Bishops and one Arch-Bishop with other more great Learned Christian men and Galfridus saith there were then in England Seven Lib. 82. 24. Bishopricks and one Arch-Bishoprick possessed with very many godly Prelates and many Abbies in which the Lord's People held the Right Religion Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gregory was a special Instrument of God for the further spreading and establishing the Gospel in England and that both Elutherius and this Gregory seem to have been very good men and great Examples both of Piety and Charity to all their Successors in that See and indeed of a truly Apostolical spirit and care though not of Authority but if all History deceive us not that Austin the Monk was far enough from being Saint Augustine But what if it had been otherwise and we were indeed first converted by the means of The Consequence these Popes will it therefore follow that we ought for ever to be subject to the Papacy This is certainly a Non-sequitur only fit to be imposed upon easie and prepared Understandings it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe Disputation and indeed the Roman Adversaries do more than seem to acknowledge as much However the great Arch-Bishop and Primate of Armach hath slurred that silly Consequence Bramhall with such Arguments as find no answer I refer the Reader if need be to his Just Vindication p. 131 132. Where he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives no Title of Jurisdiction and more especially to the prejudice of a former Owner dispossessed by violence or to the subjecting of a free Nation to a Forreign Prelate without or beyond their own consent Besides in more probability the Britains were first converted by the Eastern Church as appeared by our Ancient Customs yet never were subject to any Eastern Patriarch And sundry of our English and Brittish Bishops have converted Forreign Nations yet never pretended thence to any Jurisdiction over them Lastly what ever Title Saint Gregory might acquire by his deserts from us was meerly Personal and could not descend to his Successors But no more of this for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. W. who together with the Catholick Gentleman do plainly renounce this Plea asking Doctor Hammond with some shew of Scorn what Catholick Author ever affirmed it There is no doubt though some other Romanists have insisted upon this Argument of Conversion some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside and we have no reason to keep it up having otherwise work enough upon our hands An end therefore of this first Plea CHAP. IV. Of the Pope's supposed Claim as Patriarch THis Point admits likewise of a quick dispatch by four Propositions and the rather for a reason you will find in the close of our Discourse upon the last of them PROP. I. The Pope was anciently reputed the Western Patriarch Pope a Patriarch To this Dignity he proceeded by degrees the Apostles left no Rule for a Forreign jurisdiction from one Nation to another But according to the 33 Cannon of the Apostles if they were indeed theirs it behoved the Bishops of every Nation to know him who is their first or Primate and to esteem him as their Head The Adventitious Grandeur which the Ancient Patriarchs afterwards obtained is judged to arise three ways by the Canons of the Fathers the Edicts of Princes or Ancient Custom Upon the last ground viz. of Custom the â— Nice c. 6. Council of Nice setled the Privileges of those three Famous Patriarchal Sees Rome Alexandria and Antioch Saying let Ancient Custom prevail which Custom proceeded from the honour such Churches had as being founded by the Apostles if not rather from the Eminency of the Cities Therefore the Council of Calcedon gives this as a reason of the greatness of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople because they were the Seats of the Emperours PROP. II. The Pope as Patriarch had but a limited Jurisdiction Limited Jurisd 1. A Patriarchate as such is limited especially if the Title restrain it to the West for East North and South are not the West in the same respect 2. It is further evident from the first Number of Patriarchs for if there were more than one of the same Dignity and Jurisdiction they must be threfore limited for a Patriarch as such could have no Jurisdiction over a Patriarch as such for so they were equal par in parem non c. 3. But indeed the first time we hear of three and then of five Patriarchs at once viz. Five Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople
or a partial possession of power in some lesser things or a larger power in greater matters yielded out of curtesie ossitancy or fear or surprize and held only for a time while things were unsetled or by power craft or interest but soon after disclaimed and frequently interrupted for this is not such a Possession as our Adversaries plead for or indeed will stand them in stead But the Question in short is this whether the Pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the Supreme Power over the Church of England in those great Branches of Supremacy denied him by Henry the Eighth for nine hundred years together or for many Ages together before that time This strictly must be the Question for the Complaint is that Hen. 8. disposessed the Pope of the Supremacy which he had enjoyed for so many Ages and made himself Head of the Church of England therefore those very things which that King then denied to the Pope or took from him must be those Flowers of the Supremacy which the Papists pretend the Pope had possession of for so many Ages together before his time Two things therefore and those only are needful to be sought here what those Branches of Power are which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope and resumed to himself and his Successors and whether the Pope had quietly and without plain interruption possest the same for so many Ages before his time and in order thereunto when and how he got it CHAP. VIII What the Supremacy was which Henry the Eighth took from the Pope the Particulars of it with Notes 'T Is true Henry the Eighth resumed the Title of the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England and denied this Title to the Pope but 't is plain the Controversie was not so much about the Title as the Power the Honours Dignities Jurisdictions Authorities Profits c. belonging or appertaining to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the Church of England as is evident by the Statute Hen. 8. 26. c. 1. The Particulars of that Power were such as these 1. Henry the Eighth prohibited all Appeals to the Pope An. 24. c. 12. and Legates from Rome 2. He also forbad all payments of money upon any pretence to the Pope An. 25. c. 12. 3. He denied the Pope and Nomination and Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops and Presentations An. 25. 20. 4. He prohibited all Suits for Bulls c. to be made to the Pope or the See of Rome 25. c. 21. 5. He prohibited any Canons to be executed here without the King's Licence An. 25. 19. I have perused the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth and I cannot find any thing which he took away from the Pope but it is reducible to these five Heads touching which by the way we note 1. The Controversie was not about a Primacy of Order or the beginning of Unity but a Supremacy of Power 2. All these things were then denied him not by the King alone but by all the States of the Kingdom in many Statutes 3. The denial of all these Branches of Supremacy to the Pope were grounded upon the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Realm as is usually noted in the Preamble of the said Statutes and if that one thing shall be made to appear we must conclude that the Pope might be guilty of an Vsurpation but could never have a Legal Possession of that Supremacy that is in the question 4. Note that the States of the Kingdom in the Reign of Queen Mary when by means of Cardinal Pool they recognized the Pope's Supremacy An. 1. 11. Mar. c. 8. it was with this careful and express Limitation that nothing therein should be understood to diminish any the Liberties of the Imperial Crown of this Realm which did belong unto it in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. without deminution or enlargment of the Pope's Supremacy in England as it was in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. So that Queen Mary and her Parliament added nothing to the Pope but only restored what he had before and when and how that was obtained is next to be examined CHAP. IX Whether the Pope's Supremacy here was in quiet Possession till Henry the Eighth WE have found what Branches of the Pope's Power were cut off by Hen. 8. The Question is whether the Pope had Possession of them without interruption before that time and that we may proceed dictinctly and clearly we shall consider each of the former Branches by themselves and first we begin with the Pope's Power of receiving Appeals from hence which carries a very considerable part of his pretended Jurisdiction SECT I. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm APpeals to Rome we have found among these things which were prohibited by Henry the Eighth Therefore no doubt the Pope claimed and in some sort possessed the power of receiving such Appeals before But what kind of Possession how free and how long is worthy to be enquired Appeal is a word taken several ways Sometimes it is only to accuse so we find it in the Statutes of the 11 and 21 Rich. 2. Sometimes 3 Senses Appeal to refer our selves for judgment to some worthy person so Francfort c. appealed to John Calvin 3. But now it is chiefly used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a Superior Court that hath power of disanulling what the other did In this last sense Historians tell us that Appeals to Rome were not in use with us till about five hundred years agon or a little more viz. the year 1140. These Appeals to Rome were received and judged either in the Popes Court at Rome or by his Legates in England A word or two of each For Appeals to the Pope at Rome the two famous instances of Wilfred and Anselm take up much of our History 1. Locally Wilfred But they both seem at least at first to have appealed to the Pope under the second notion of appeal Anselm Not to him as a proper or legal Judge but as a great and venerable Prelate But not to stick there 't is well known what effect they obtained As for Wilfred his account was of elder date and hath appeared before to the great prejudice of the Popes Possession in England at that time Anselm But Anselm is the great monument of Papal Obedience and as a learned man observes the first promoter of Papal Authority in England He began his Enterprise with a pretence that he ought not to be barr'd of visiting the Vicar of St. Peter causâ Regiminis Ecclesiae but he was not suffered to do that So far was the Pope then from having the power of receiving appeals that he might not receive the visit of a person of Anselm's quality without the Kings leave First he was told by the Bishops as well as Lay-Lords that it was a thing unheard of and altogether against the use
Statute as also by another 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in or rather reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury saving the Rights of the See of York in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King the Wealth and Profit of the Realm and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflexion they are 1. The Pope's Vsurpation in the Premises 2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people that he had full Power to dispence with all humane Laws Uses and Customs in all Causes Spiritual 3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years 4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 5. England recognizeth no Superior under God but the King only and is free from Subjection to any Laws but such as are ordained within this Realm or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage and not as Laws of any Forreign Power 6. And lastly that according to Natural Equity the whole State of our Realm in Parliament hath this Power in it and peculiar to it to dispence with alter Abrogate c. our own Laws and Customs for Publick good which Power appears by wholsom Acts of Parliament made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth in the time of his Progenitors For these Reasons it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth That no Subject of England should sue for Licences c. henceforth to the Pope but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Now 't is confessed before and in the Preamble to the Statute that the Pope had used this Power for many years but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance and one Reason for Redress but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint dustine or how long quietly is the proper question especially seeing the Laws of the Land made by King Henry's Predecessors are pleaded by him in contradiction to it Yea who will come forth and shew us one Instance No Instance 1110 years after Christ of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ if not five hundred of the nine hundred years Prescription and the first five hundred too as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen are lost to the Popes and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England But Did not the Church of England without any reference to the Court of Rome use this Power during the first eleven hundred years what man is so hardly as to deny it against the multitude of plain Instances in History Did not our Bishops relax the Rigor of Ecclesiastical Canons did not all Bishops all over the Christian World do the like before the Monopoly was usurped In the Laws of Alured alone and in the conjoynt Laws of Alured and Gunthrun how many Gervis Dorober p. 1648. sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England and the like we find in the Laws of Spel. Conc. p. 364. c. some other Saxon Kings Dunstan the Arch Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count he made his peace at Rome the Pope commands his Restitution Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I Ibid. p. 481. see him penitent but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical Discipline to insult over us God forbid that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man this great Instance doth two things at once justifieth the Arch-Bishops and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King and with Queen Maud the Wife of Henry the First in the like Case in the days of Anselm without any Suit to Rome or Forreign Dispensation Lanfr Ep. 32. Eadm l. 3. p. 57. These are great and notorious and certain Instances and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards As the Selected Cardinals Stile the avaritious Dispensations of the Pope Sacrilegious Vulnera Legum so our Statutes of Provisors expresly 27 Ed. 3. say they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land accordingly The King Lords and Commons complained of this abuse as a Mighty Grievance of the frequent coming among them of this Infamous Math. Par. Au. 1245. Messenger the Pope's non-obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customs Writings Grants Statutes Rights Priviledges were not only weakned but made void Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford and by his Bull exempted the Vniversity from his Jurisdiction and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and the probable Ruine of the said University Ex Arch. Tur. Londini Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91. In interruption of this Papal Vsurpation were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 Et 12 Rich. 2. Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expresly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England because they executed the King's Comandments in his Courts they express the mischiefs to be the Dismherison of the Crown the Destruction of the King Laws and Realm that the Crown of England is subject to none under God and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it against the Pope and the same King contested the Point himself with him and would not yield it An Excommunication by the Arch-Bishop albeit it be disanulled by the Pope is to be allowed Lord Coke Cawdrie's Case by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl Excom 4. For the Pope's Bulls in special our Laws have abundantly provided against them as well in case of Excommunication as Exemption vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass pl. 19. and the abundant as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws in Cawd Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope but it was not allowed because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom 6. The same again 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. R. 3. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. So late as Henry the Fourth if any Person of Stat. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3. Religion obtain of the Bishop of Rome to be Exempt from Obedience Regular or Ordinary he is in
and as Head of a new and strange Church draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism in flat contradiction to the essential Profession both of the ancient and present Church of Rome and to that solemn Oath by which also the Pope as Pope binds himself at his Inauguration to maintain and communicate with Hence not only Vsurpation Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysius so utterly silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning Dionysius at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 290. The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Turtullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To.