Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45426
|
Of schisme a defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists / by H. Hammond ...
|
Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.
|
1653
(1653)
|
Wing H562A; ESTC R40938
|
74,279
|
194
|
if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that nation be repealed is the judgment of Roger Widrington or Father Preston in his last rejoinder to Fitzherbert c. 11. § 44. and c. 8. he confirms it by the doctrine of Zuarez l. 2. de leg c. 19. and the reason of Zuarez is because such a law made at a general meeting of Princes is intrinsecally a civil law and hath not force by virtue of the law to binde the subjects of any particular kingdome or Common-wealth any otherwise then as it is enacted or received by the Governors and subjects of that kingdome § 23. And this is affirmed and extended by Balsamon to all Canons in general as the judgment of learned men in his notes on that 16 th Canon of the Councel of Carthage before cited § 24. So if alienated by prescription And for the matter of Prescription the decision of †Clav Reg l. 9. c. 12. Sayr is worth observing that in such cases as these Cum Praescriptio sit tantùm de jure Civili Canonico When the Prescription is neither of the law of Nature nor the Divine law nor the law of Nations but only of the Civil and Canon law there non plus se extendit quà m unusquisque supremus Princeps in suo Regno eam suis legibus extensam esse velit it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his laws is supposed to will that it shall be extended which saith he cannot be supposed in matters of this nature of exempting subjects from making their appeal to their King for saith he non est de mente alicujus Principis ut quispiam subditorum possit praescribere quòd ad Principem ab eo non appelletur aut quòd eum coercere non potest quando ratio justitia postulat It is not imaginable to be the minde of any Prince that any of his subjects should be able to prescribe that he is not to appeal to his Prince but to some other or that his Prince may not punish him when reason and justice requires It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that I here pretend but I shall not thus expatiate CHAP. VII Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation § 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulnesse of the Reformation in these kingdomes will easily be answered And therefore supposing the third and last objection to lie against our Reformation that it was founded in the casting off that obedience to the Bishop of Rome which was formerly paid him by our Bishops and people under them I shall now briefly descend to that first laying down the matter of fact as it lies visible in our records and then vindicating it from all blame of schisme which according to the premises can any way be thought to adhere to it § 2. The history of what was done against the Bishop of Rome in the Reformation And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledged that in the reigne of King Henry VIII the Papal and with it all forein power in Ecclesiastical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergie and by statutes or acts of Parliament cast out of this kingdome The first step or degree hereof was the Clergie's synodical recognizing the King singularem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectorem unicum supremum Dominum the singular Protector the only and supreme Head of the Church of England Upon this were built the statutes of 24 Hen VIII prohibiting all Appeals to Rome and for the determining all Ecclesiasticall suits and controversies within the kingdome The statute of 25 Hen VIII for the manner of electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops and another in the same year prohibiting the payment of all impositions to the court of Rome and for the obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome and that of 26 Hen VIII declaring the King to be the supreme head which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was to avoid mistakes changed into supreme Governour of the Church of England and to have all honours and praeeminencies which were annexed to that title § 3. This was in the next place attended with the submission of the Clergie to the King agreed on first in Convocation and afterward in 25 Hen VIII enacted by Parliament to this purpose that as it was by the Clergie acknowledged that the Convocation of the Clergie then was alwaies had been and ought to be assembled by the Kings writ and as they submitting themselves to the King's Majestie had promised in verbo sacerdotis that they would never from thenceforth presume to attempt allege claim or put in ure enact promulge or exercise any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other unlesse the King 's most royal assent may to them be had to make promulge execute the same so it was now enacted that none of the Clergie should enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical without assent and authority received from the King upon pain of imprisonment and fine at the Kings pleasure § 4. The third and last step of this began with the debate of the Vniversities and most eminent Monasteries in the kingdome An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether any authority did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome in the Kingdome of England more then to any other forein Bishop and upon agitation it was generally defined in the negative and so returned testified under their hands and seals The like was soon after concluded and resolved by the Convocation of the Bishops and all the Clergie and subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oathes And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis set out by the Prelates the chief composers of which were John Stokesly Bishop of London Cutbert Tunstall Bishop of Durham Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester and D r Thirlby afterward Bishop where from the practise of the Saxon and first Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Negative out of story And what was thus concluded by the Clergie was soon turned into an Act of Parliament also in 28 Hen VIII called An Act extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome and prescribing an oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical and lay of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority § 5. By these three degrees it is acknowledged that the Bishops and Clergie first then the King confirming the Acts of the Convocation and after making Acts of Parliament to the same purposes renounced the authority of the Roman See and cast it
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