but these obtained upon private persons and many times in methods not cognizable by Law neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases because they had something which they unaccountably valued for their money and the possession of a false opinion in the Vulgar as Juglers and Cheats may equally glory in can never be soberly interpreted to be a good and sufficient Title to the Supremacy of the Church of England Yet it is not amiss to remember that the Popes Messenger Jo. Opizanus for acting against the Kings Laws in getting mony for his Master was cast into Prison as we find it Vit. Hen. Chich. p. 86. Neither can we reasonably imagine but that much of that vast Sum was gathered by those ways which in the Reign of Hen. 3. the Lords and Commons complain of viz. that above four hundred thousand pounds yearly was carried hence into Italy It was some disturbance of such kind of Receipts that the Law forbids any such Bulls to be Stat. de 7. H. 1. c. 6. purchased for the time to come upon pain of praemunire And that 't was decreed that the Popes Collector though he have a Bull for the purpose Hen. 4. fol. 9. hath no Jurisdiction within this Realm And if the ancient Law of the Realm saith that the Pope cannot alter the Laws of England that Law condemns his raising money upon the people in any kind without special Law to that purpose a Prerogative the Kings of England themselves do not claim Therefore that standing Fundamental Law of England always lay in bar against and was a continual real and legal disturbance of the Popes possession of power to impose Taxes or by any devices to collect money from the English either Laity or Clergy CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument from Prescription 'T is on our side No force for the Pope VVE have seen what the Argument from Prescription is come to how far short of Nine Hundred years and how unsettled both in Law and Practice it ever was both as to Jurisdiction in the Popes Court at Rome and by his Legates here and as to Legislation by the force of his Canons and his dispensation by Faculties Licenses and any sort of Bulls c. and as to his Patronage of or Profits from the English Church If a just Computation were made I believe the Argument from Possession would really appear to be on our side Our Kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of Supremacy over us ever since the Act of Hen. 8. extinguishing the Popes Usurpation here with far more quiet and less interruption than ever the Pope did for so long a time Besides other qualifications of our Kings possession do mightily strengthen the Plea above any thing that can be alledged on the Popes behalf 1. Our Kings had possession from the beginning according to the Canon and therefore could Nice Ephe. never be lawfully divested Ancient Histories are evident for us and Baronius determines well what is said by a Modern concerning ancient Tom. 1. an 1. n. 12. affairs without the Authority of any more ancient is contemned This ancient Possession of our Kings hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our Laws and the consent of the whole Kingdom signified thereby And these Laws have still been insisted on and repeated when there hath been any great occasion and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient Liberties But the Pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his Power here before Queen Mary's Reign nor by Her neither in the main branches of it though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a great name and a verbal Title Indeed the subject of the Question being a spiritual Right our Adversaries themselves agree that Possession sufficient to prove it ought to begin near Christs time And he that hath begun it later as certainly the Pope did unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession as the Pope can never do is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical as no doubt by S. W's Logick the Pope is as before was noted I shall conclude with the grave and considerate Concession of Father Barnes noted by Dr. Stillingfleet who after his thorow study of the point upon clear Conviction determined it positively for us in these words The Britanick Church may plead the Cyprian Dr. Still p. 398. Priviledg that it was subject to no Patriarch and although this priviledge was taken away by Force and Tumult yet being restored in Henry the Eighth's time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism by which he grants all that is pertinent to our Cause that the Pope had not possession here from the beginning nor ought to have had 2. That he took advantage bellorum tumultibus vi for his Usurpation 3. That our Ancient Cyprian priviledge was restored by Henry the Eighth totius Regni Consensu with the Consent of the whole Kingdom 4. That never since it hath been peaceably prescribed pacifice praescriptum or quietly enjoyed 5. And that therefore it still ought to be retained sine Schismatis ullius Notâ without the brand or charge of Schism which is the only thing contended for CHAP. XV. The Argument from Infallibility Considered in its Consequence retorted THe two last Arguments for proof of the Pope's Authority are general and not limited to the Church of England as the three former were and are his Infallibility and his Vniversal Pastorship which remain to be examined Arg. From his Infallibility it may be argued thus Whether the Pope were the means of our Conversion or have a Patriarchal Right over us or have had possession of the Government of the English Church heretofore or not if he be really and absolutely Infallible he hath thereby a right to govern us and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him but the Pope is really and absolutely Infallible Ergo. The Consequence would tempt a denial indeed Consequence Infallibility is an excellent qualification for an Vniversal Rector but are not qualification and Commission two things hath God given Authority to every man equal to his Parts to his Natural acquired or infused abilities if not what necessity is there that he hath to the Pope if all Power as well as all Wisdom is from God the prime fountain of them both and if we pretend to both need we evidence only one Indeed we ought to be guided by one that is Infallible if such a one there be but the Necessity ariseth from Prudence not immediatly from Conscience Unless by some other way of Authority God hath given him power to govern us as well as ability otherwise we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did
400 Bishops denied him Obj. This Decree was not lawfully proceeded in because the Legates of the Pope were absent Bel. l. 2. de Pont. c. 22. Ans The Legates were there the next day and excepted and moved to have the Acts of the day before read Aetius for the Council sheweth that the Legates knew what was done all was done Canonically Then the Acts being read the Popes Legates tell the Council that Circumvention was used in making that Canon of Priviledges and that the Bishops were compelled thereunto The Synod with a loud voice cryed Joyntly we were not compelled to subscribe After every one severally protest I did subscribe willingly and freely and the Acts are ratified and declared to be just and valid and wherein say they we will persist the Legates are instant to have the Act revoked because the Apostolical See is humbled or abased thereto the Fathers unanimously answered the whole Synod doth approve it This clear account we have in Bin. in Concil Calced Act. 16. p. 134 and 137. Bellarmine saith that the Pope approved all the Decrees of this Council which were de fide and doth not Bellarmine argue that the Popes Superiority is Jure divino and the present Church of Rome hold that his Supremacy is a point necessary to Salvation How comes it to pass that he would not approve this Decree or how can they esteem this Council general and lawful and swear to observe the decrees of it when 't is found guilty of Heresie in so great a point as the Popes Primacy But to end with this the very Title it self of Bishop of the Vniversal Church in the stile of those Ages signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy Vniversal Bishop of the Church seem'd a dangerous Title importing universal Power over it and was therefore so much abhorred by Pope Gregory But the Title of Bishop of the Vniversal Church signified the care of the whole Church to which as Origen saith every Bishop is called Therefore Aurelius Fortunatianus Augustine are called Bishops of the Vniversal Church and many in the Greek Church had the same honourable Titles given them which signified either that they professed the Catholick Faith or as Bishops had a general regard to the good of the Catholick Church But your own Jesuite confesseth that Pelagius Azorius and Gregory both Popes have born witness that no Bishop of Rome before them did ever use the Stile of Vniversal Bishops However Vniversal Patriarch makes as great a sound as Universal Bishop yet that Title was given to John Bishop of Constantinople by the Bishops of Syria Cod. Authent Constitu 3. Obj. The custody of the Vine i. e. the whole Church the Council saith is committed to the Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 13. Pope by God Ans True so that Primitive Pope Elutherius said to the Bishops in France the whole Catholick Church Bin. Epist Eleuth is committed to you St. Paul also had the care of all the Churches but that is high which Greg. Nazian saith of Athanasius that he having the presidence of the Church of Alexandria may be said thereby to have the Government of the whole Christian World Sal. Tom. 16. in 1 Pet. 5. Now saith a Learned man we are compelled to ask with what Conscience you could make such Objections Bishop Morton in good carnest to busie your Adversaries and seduce your Disciples withal whereunto you your selves could so easily make answer Obj. We find no further objection against the other Councils worthy Notice Bellarmine argues the Popes Supremacy because the Synod of Const being the Fifth General Council complemented the Pope as his Obedient Servants nos inquit Praeses Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus c. Bell. lib. 2. de pont c. 13. Though this very Council both opposed accused and condemned the Pope for Heresie which could not possibly consist with their acknowledgment of his Supremacy or Infallibility The same is more evident in the sixth seventh and eighth General Councils condemning the Persons and Judgments of and giving Laws to the Bishops of Rome to which nothing material can be objected but what hath been more than answered Binius indeed in his Tract de Prim. Eccl. Rom. gives us the sayings of many ancient Popes for the Supremacy pretended especially in two points The Power of Appeals challenged by Pope Anacetus Zepherinus Fabianus Sixtus and Symachus and Exemption of the first See from censure or judgment by any other power claimed by Pope Sylvester and Gelasius But these are Testimonies of Popes themselves in their own cause and besides both these points have been found so directly and industriously determined otherwise by their own General Councils that further answer is needless CONCLUSION THus Objections being removed the Argument from the Councils settles firm in its full strength and seeing both the ancient Fathers and the Catholick Church have left us their sence in the said Councils and the sence of the Councils is also the received and professed faith of the present Church of Rome it self who can deny that the Catholick Church to this day hath not only not granted or acknowledged but even most plainly condemned the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea who can doubt but our Argument against it is founded upon their own Rock the very constitution of the Papacy it self as before hath appeared Therefore the Popes claim upon this Plea as well as upon any or all the former is found groundless and England's Deliverance from his foreign Jurisdiction just and honest as well as happy Which our good God in his wise and merciful Providence ever Continue Preserve and Prosper Amen Amen A Serious ALARM to all sorts of ENGLISH-MEN against POPERY from Sence and Conscience their OATHS and their INTEREST 1. THe Kings of England seem bound not only by their Title but in Conscience of their Ministry under God to defend the Faith and the Church of Christ within their Dominions against Corruption and Invasion and therefore against Popery They are also bound in Honour Interest and Fidelity to preserve the Inheritance and Rights of the Crown and to derive them entire to their Heirs and Successors and therefore to keep out the Papal Authority And lastly 't is said they are bound by their Oaths at their Coronation and by the Laws of Nature and Government to maintain the Liberties and Customs of their people and to govern them according to the Laws of the Realm and consequently not to admit the foreign Jurisdiction of the Pope in prejudice of our ancient Constitution our common and Ecclesiastical Laws our natural and legal Liberties and Properties 2. The Nobility of England have anciently held themselves bound not only in honour but by their Oaths Terras honores Regis c. to preserve together with the King the Territories and honours of the King omni fidelitate ubique most faithfully and to defend them against Enemies and Foreigners meaning especially the Pope
of Rome 'T is expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself in Edw. 1. Reign to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown the State of the Realm the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Progenitors against all foreign Usurpation toto posse totis viribus to the utmost of their power and with all their might adding We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possumus nec debemus though our Soveraign Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the Premises viz. owning the Authority of the Pope by his answer touching his Right to Scotland so strange so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King would himself See that famous Letter sent to the Pope the 29 of Edw. 1. taken out of Cor. Christi College-Library and printed this year at Oxford the reading of which gave the occasion of these Meditations 3. It appears further in the Sheet where you have that Letter that the Commons in Parliament have heretofore held themselves bound to resist the invasion and attempts of the Pope upon England though the King and the Peers should connive at them their words are resolute Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent meaning Bishop Adomers Revocation from Banishment upon the Popes order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret This is said to be recorded about the 44 of Hen. 3. 4. It is there observed also that upon the Conquest William the Conquerour made all the Freeholders of England to become sworn Brethren sworn to defend the Monarchy with their Persons and Estates to the utmost of their Ability and manfully to preserve it So that the whole Body of the people as well as the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament stood anciently bound by their Oath to defend their King and their Country against Invasion and Usurpation 5. The present Constitution of this Kingdom is yet a stronger Bulwark against Popery Heretofore indeed the Papal pretensions were checkt sometimes in temporal sometimes in spiritual concerns and Instances But upon the Reformation the Popes Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected and thrown out of England and the consequence is an universal standing obligation upon the whole Kingdom by Statutes Customs and most solemn Oaths to defend our Monarchy our Church our Country and our Posterity against those Incroachments and that Thraldom from which we were then so wonderfully delivered and for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved blessed be God Accordingly in our present Laws both the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be inherent in the Crown and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those Laws And I doubt not but all Ministers of the Church and all Ministers of State and of Law and War all Mayors and Officers in Cities and Towns corporate c. together with all the Sheriffs and other Officers in their several Countries and even all that have received either Trust or power from his Majesty within the Kingdom All these I say I suppose are sworn to defend the King's Supremacy as it is inconsistent with and in flat opposition to Popery In the Oath of Allegiance we swear to bear true Allegiance to the King and to defend him against all Conspiracies and Attempts which shall be made against his Person and Crown to the utmost of our power meaning especially the Conspiracies and Attempts of Papists as is plain by that which follows in that Oath and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath we swear that the King is the only Supreme Governor in this Realm as well in all spiritual things and causes as temporal and that no foreign Prince or Prelate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm and that we do abhor and renounce all such We swear also that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and to our power assist and defend all Jurisdictions viz. Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness 6. Now next to Oaths nothing can be thought to oblige us more than Interest But if neither Oaths nor Interest neither Conscience nor Nature neither Religion nor self-Preservation can provoke us to our own defence what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment to devour a perjur'd and senseless Generation If either our joynt or several Interests be considerable how are we all concern'd 1. Is there any among us that care for nothing but Liberty and Mony they should resist Popery which would many ways deprive them of both 2. But if the knowledge of the Truth if the Canon of life in the holy Scriptures if our Prayers in our own tongue if the Simplicity of the Gospel the purity of Worship and the Integrity of Sacraments be things valuable and dear to Christians let them abhor Popery 3. If the ancient Priviledges of the Brittish Church the Independency of her Government upon Foreign Jurisdiction if their legal Incumbencies their Ecclesiastical Dignities if their opportunities and capacities of saving Souls in the continuance of their Ministries if their judgment of discretion touching their Doctrine and Administrations their judgment of Faith Reason and Sence touching the Eucharist if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange Doctrines Romish Customs groundless Traditions and Treasonable Oaths And lastly if freedom from spiritual Tyranny and bloody Inquisitions if all these be of consequence to Clergy-men let them oppose Popery 4. If our Judges and their several Courts of Judicature would preserve their Legal proceedings and judgments and decrees if they would not be controlled and superseded by Bulls Sentences and Decrees from the Pope and Appeals to Rome let them never yield to Popery 5. If the Famous Nobility and Gentry of England would appear like themselves and their heroick Ancestors in the defence of the Rights of their Country the Laws and customs of the Land the Wealth of the people the Liberties of the Church the Empire of Brittain and the grandeur of their King or indeed their own honour and Estates in a great measure let them never endure the re-admission of Popery 6. Yea let our great Ministers of State and of Law and of War consider that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places if the Roman Force breaks in upon us and remember that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect one consequence of it was to put their places into other hands And therefore in this capacity as well as many other they have no reason to be Friends to Popery 7. As for His Most Excellent Majesty no suspicion either of inclination to or want of due vigilance against Popery can fasten upon him and may he long live in the Enjoyment and under a worthy Sence of the Royalties of Monarchy and the honour and exercise of his Natural and Legal Supremacy in all Causes and over all
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
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
of the Realm for any of the great men especially himself to presume any such thing without the Kings Licence Notwithstanding he would and did go but what followed His Bishoprick was seiz'd into the Kings hand And the Pope durst not or thought not good to give him either Consilium or Auxilium as Sir Rog. Twisd p. 11. 12. makes appear out Eadmer p. 20 26 38 39 53. In the dispute the King told Anselm the Pope had not to do with his Rights and wrote that free Letter we find in Jorvalensis Col. 999 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the Pope the King sent another letter by Anselm himself to Rome who spake plainly his Master nec amissione Eadem 73 13. Regni c. for the loss of his Kingdom he would not lose the investiture of his Churches Obj. But Anselm as Arch-Bishop took the Oath that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall which allowed his Power to receive Appeals Ans 'T is true but Pope Paschalis himself who devised that Oath acknowledgeth that it was as Anselm signified to him not admitted but wondred at and lookt on as a strange innovation both by the King and the great men of the Kingdom Baron an 1102. nu 8. The King pleaded the Fundamental Laws and customs of the Land against it it is a custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father that no Pope may be appealed unto without the Kings licence He that takes away the customs of the Kingdom doth violate the Power and Crown of the King And 't is well noted by Arch-Bishop Bramhall Malms l. 1. degest Pont. Ang. that the Laws established by his Father viz. William the Conqueror were no other than the Laws of Edward the Confessor that is to say the old Saxon Laws who had before yielded to the request of his Barons as Hoveden notes to In Hen. 2. confirm those Laws But though Anselm had obliged himself by the said Oath to the Pope yet the rest of the Bishops refused the Yoke and thereupon Malmsb. tells us in his c. that in the execution of these Malm. ibid. things all the Bishops of England did deny their Suffrage to their Primate Consequently the Vnanimity of the whole Realm appeared in the same Point in the Reign of this Kings Grandchild in the Statute of Clarendon confirming the former Brittish English custom not only by their consents but Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. their Oaths wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to Rome This Statute of Clarendon was made when Popery seemed to be at the height in England It was made to confirm the Customs and Liberties of Henry the Seconds Predecessors that is to say as the words of the Statute are his Grandfather Henry the first Son of the Conqveror and other Kings Now the Customs of England are our common Laws and the customs of his Predecessors were the Saxon Danish and Norman Laws P. 73. and therefore ought to be observed of all as my Lord Bramhall reasons What these customs were I may shew more largely hereafter at present this one is pertinent All appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop fail to do his duty the last must be to the King to give order for redress that is by fit delegates In Ed. the Thirds time we have a plain Law to the same purpose in these words Whosoever 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any cause whereof the Cognizance belongeth to the Kings Court or should sue in any foreign Court to defeat any Judgment given in the Kings Court viz. by appealing to Rome they should incur the same penalties and upon the same ground the body of the Kingdom would not suffer Edward the First to to be cited before the Pope Obj. 'T is confest that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 't is granted that in case a Bishop erring in Faith and on Admonition appearing incorrigible ad summos Pontifices the Arch-Bishops vel sedem Apostolicam accusetur which passage as Sir Ro. Twisden guesses was inserted afterwards or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope Ans But the same learned Mans Note upon it is that this is the only Cause wherein I find any English P. 32. Law approve a foreign Judicature 'T is plain Anselm's Appeal now on foot was disapproved by the whole Kingdom 't is evident that this Clause was directly repugnant to the Liberties and Customs of the Realm upon which Anselm's Appeal was so ill resented 'T is manifest in those days and after appeals to Rome were not common yea this very Pope Paschalis complains to this King Vos oppressis Apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis which was an 1115. and that they were held Eadm p. 113. 3. a cruel intrusion on the Churches Liberty so as at the Assize at Clarendon 1164. this Law if it were so was annulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the Realm the eighth Chapter whereof is wholly spent in shewing the Right of the Kingdom in this point quod non appellaretur for any Cause ad sedem Apostolicam without leave had first from the King and his Officials as Joh. Sarisb interprets Ep. 159. p. 254. Obj. Indeed the King did personally yield afterwards an 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes Ans But the whole Kingdom four years after would not quit their interest but did again renew the assize of Clarendon 1176. using this close expression Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem Hoved. f. 314. b. 3. terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint stare in curia domini Regis ut legentur c. as Gervase also notes au 1176. Col. 1433. 19. Accordingly was the practice during K. Rich. the seconds time Geffrey Arch-Bishop of York was complained of that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome but imprisoned those that made them and though upon that complaint a time was assigned to make his defence to the Pope yet he refused to go because of the Kings Prohibition and the indisposition of the Air. After this upon a difference with the King the Arch-Bishop went to Rome and made his peace with the Pope and returns but the King offended with it committed the care even of the spirituals of his Arch-Bishoprick to others till he had reconciled himself to the Crown which was nere two years after about 1198. After this again he received complaint from Innocentius III. non excusare te potes c. Thou canst not excuse thy self as thou oughtest that Hov. an 1201. thou art ignorant of the priviledge of Appeals to us seeing thou thy self has sometimes done the same And near about the same time as Twisden observes
declaratory Laws against it Thus we have seen how the Popes Possession of the formal branch of Jurisdiction by Appeals and Legates stood here from St. Austin to Hen. 8. and that it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred together passeth away as a Vapour The Contrary being evident by as Authentick Testimonies as can be desired and now what can be imagined to enervate them Obj. If it be urged that it was once in the body of our Laws viz. In Magna Charta liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro redire salvo securè per terram per aquam salva fide nostra nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve Tempus 't is confest Ans But here is no expression that plainly and in terms gives license of Appeals to Rome 'T is indeed said that it is lawful for any to go out of the Kingdom and to return safe But mark the Conditions following Nisi in c. 'T is likely these words were inserted in favour of Appeals but it may be the Authors were timerous to word it in a more plain contradiction to our ancient Liberties 2. The very form of words as they are would seem to intimate that the Custom of England was otherwise 3. Lastly If it be considered how soon after and with what unanimity and courage our ancient Liberty to the contrary was redeemed and vindicated and that clause left out of Magna Charta ever since though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and Parliaments successively it is only an argument of a sudden and violent torrent of Papal Power in King John's time c. not of any grounded or well settled Authority in the English Laws as our English Liberties have I Conclude with those weighty words of the Statute of Ed. 3. an 27. c. 1. Having regard to the said Statute made in the time of his said Grandfathers which Statute holdeth always in force which was never annulled or defeated in any point And for as much as he is bound by his Oath to do the same to be kept as the Law of the Realm though that by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary Vid. Preamble of the Statute Whereupon it is well observed that Queen Acts Mon. Mary her self denyed Cardinal Pelow to appear as the Popes Legate in England in her time And caused all the Sea-ports to be stopped and all Letters Briefs and Bulls to be intercepted and brought to her CHAP. X. The Pope's Legislative Power in England before Hen. 8. No Canons of the Pope oblige us without our Consent our Kings Saxons Danes Normans made Laws Ecclesiastical WE have found possession of the Executive Power otherwise than was pretended we now come to consider how it stood with the Legislative the Pope indeed claimed a Power of making and imposing Canons upon this Church but Henry the Eighth denied him any such Power and prohibited any Canons whatsoever to be executed here without the King's Licence An. 25. 19. The question now is whether the Pope enjoyed that Power of making and imposing Canons effectually and quietly here from the time of Saint Augustine to Henry the Eighth or indeed any considerable time together and this would invite us to a greater Debate who was Supreme in the English Church the Pope or the King during that time or rather who had the exercise of the Supremacy for the Power of making Laws is the chief Flower or Branch of the Supremacy and he that freely and without interruption enjoyed this Power was doubtless in the Possession of the Supremacy That the Pope had it not so long and so quietly as is pleaded by some and that our Kings have generally enjoyed it will both together appear with evidence enough by the Particulars following 1. If none were to be taken for Pope but by the King 's Appointment Sure his Laws were not to be received but with the King's Allowance 2. If not so much as a Letter could be received from the Pope without the King's Knowledge who caused words prejudicial to the Crown to be renounced Sure neither his Laws Both the Antecedents we find in Eadm p. 626. p. 131. 1. 3. If no Canons could be made here without the King's Authority or being made could have any force but by the King's Allowance and Confirmation where was the Pope's Supremacy that Canons could not be made here without Convocations by Kings the King's Authority is evident because the Convocations themselves always were and ought to be Assembled by the King 's Writ Eadm p. 24. 5. 11. Besides the King caused some to sit therein to Supervise the Actions Legato ex parte Regis Regni inhiberent ne ibi contra Regiam Coronam dignitates aliquid statuere attentaret and when any did otherwise he was forced to retract what he had done as did Peckham or were in paucis Servatae as those of Boniface Math. Par. An. 1237. p. 447. 51. Lindwood c. 1. Glos 1. If Canons were made though the Popes Legate and consequently all his power was at Can. confir by Kings the making of them yet had they no force at all as Laws over us without the Kings allowance and confirmation The King having first heard what was decreed Consensum praebuit authoritate Regiâ potestate confirmavit Statuta concilii by his Kingly power he confirmed the Statutes of the Council of William Arch-Bishop of Cant. and the Legate of the holy Church celebrated at Westminster by the Assent of the King and primorum omnium Regni the Chapters subscribed were promulged Eadm p. 6. 29. Flor. Wigorn. an 1127. p. 505. Gervase an 1175. Col. 1429. 18. Twisden Concludes as for Councils it is certain none were here called from Rome till 1127. P. 19 20. If they did come to any as to Calcuith the King upon the advice of the Arch-Bishop Statuit diem appointed the day of the Council So when William the first held one at Winchester 1070. for deposing Stygand though there came to it three sent from Alexan. 2. Yet it was held Jubente presente Rege who was President of it wherein as before was noted the Popes Legate subscribed the sixteenth after all the English Bishops Vita Lanfranci c. 7. p. 7. Col. 1. d. All our Canons are therefore as they are justly Canons Kings Laws called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws because no Canons have the power of Laws but such as he allows and confirms and whatsoever Canons he confirmed of old that had their original from a foreign power he allowed for the sake of their Piety or Equity or as a means of Communion with the Church from whence they came but his allowance or confirmation gave them all the Authority they had in England 'T is a point so plain in History that it is beyond Before Conquest question that during all the time from St. Gregory to the Conquest the Brittish Saxon and
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-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
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
case of a praemunire which is an offence contra Regem Coronam dignitatem suam Again more plain to our purpose in Henry Hen. 5. the Fifth's time after great Complaint in Parliament the Grievances by reason of the Pope's licences to the contrary it was enacted that the King willing to avoid such Mischiefs hath ordained and established that all Incumbents by the Patronage of Spiritual Persons might quietly 3 Hen. 5. c. 4. enjoy their Benefices without being inquieted by any colour of Provisions Licences and Acceptations by the Pope and that all such Licenses and Pardons upon and by such Provisions made in any manner should be void and of no valour aod that the Malefactors by virtue thereof incur the punishments contained in the Statutes of Provisors before that time made The King only may grant or licence to found a 9 Hen. 6. fol. 16. Spiritual Corporation as it is concluded by our Law even in Henry the Sixth's time Further in Edward the Fourth's Reign the Pope granted to the Prior of Saint Johns to have 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. a Sanctuary within his Priory and this was pleaded and claimed by the Prior but it was resolved by the Judges that the Pope had no power to grant any Sanctuary within this Realm and by Judgment of the Law it was disallowed We have thus fully I hope justified the words of the Statute of Henry the Eighth that the Laws made in the times of his Predecessors did in effect the same things Especially those of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. which that Parliament 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. refer us to expresly and particularly and how small time is left for the Pope's Prescription if any at all for his quiet possession of the power of licences in England Yet it is confest he had usurped and by several instances been heedlesly or timerously permitted to exercise such a Power for many years together as the Parliament acknowledgeth though contrary to the Ancient Liberty the Common Law and so many plain Decrees of our Judges and Statutes of the Land from Age to Age as have appeared CHAP. XII Of the Patronage of the English Church in our Kings by History Law THis Flower of the Crown was derived from our ancient English and Brittish Kings to William the Conqueror William Rufus and Hen. 1. who enjoyed the Right of placing in vacant Sees by the Tradition of a Ring and a Crocier Staff without further Approbation Ordination or Confirmation from Rome for the first eleven hundred years Indeed then Hildebrand and after Calixtus did condemn and prohibit all Investitures taken from a Lay-hand That before Hildebrand this was the undoubted right of the Crown is evident both by History and Law For History we find Malms notes that King Edgar did grant to the Monks of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbot for ever But he reserved to himself and his Heirs the power to invest the Brother elected by the Tradition of a Pastoral Staff Malms de gest R. l. 2. c. 8. Therefore Ingulf the Abbot of Crowland in the time of the Conqueror saith for many years Ibid. he might have said Ages past there hath been no free Election of Prelates but the Kings Court did confer all dignities by a Ring and a Crocier Staff Lanfrank desired of William the Conqueror the Patronage of the Abby of St. Austin but the King answered se velle c. that he would keep all the Crociers Staffs i. e. Investitures in his own hand The same is testified of Anselm himself by Eadm He after the manner and example of his Predecessor was instructed according to the custom of the Land and did homage to the King as Lanfrank his Predecessor in the See of Canterbury in his time had done and William the Agent of Hen. 1. protested openly to Pope Paschal I would have all men here to know that my Lord the King of England will not suffer the loss of his Investitures for the loss of his Kingdom Indeed Pope Paschal was as resolute though it be said not so just in his answer I speak it before God Paschal the Pope will not suffer him to keep them Eadm l. 3. p. 73. without punishment no not for the Redemption of his Head Here was indeed a demand made with confidence and courage but had that Pope no better Title than that of Possession to claim by he had certainly none at all For as Eadm concludes the case seemed a new thing or Innovation to this our Age and unheard of to the English from the time that the Normans began to Reign that I say not sooner for from the time that William the Norman conquered the Land no Bishop or Abbot was made before Anselm who did not first do homage to the King and from his Eadm wer in Praef. p. 2. hand by the gift of a Crocier Staff receive the investiture to his Bishoprick or Abbacy except two Bishops of Rochester who were Surrogates to the Arch-Bishop and inducted by him by the Kings leave Indeed now the Pope began to take upon him in earnest and to require an Oath of Fidelity of the Arch-Bishop when he gave him the Pall and to deny that Pall if he would not take it A new Oath never before heard of or practised An Oath of Obedience to himself as it it is expresly called in the Edition of Gregory 13. An Oath not established by any Council but only by Papal Authority by Paschalis himself as Gregory the Ninth recordeth This Oath at first though new was modest bounding the Obedience of the Arch-Bishops only by the Rules of the holy Fathers as we find in the old Roman Pontifical But it was quickly changed from Regulas Sanctorum Patrum to Regalia Sancti Petri The change as my Lord Bramhall observes not great in words but in Sence abominable P. 320. Bellarmine would persuade us that the like Twisd p. 47 Oath was given in Gregory the firsts time but that was nothing like an Oath of Obedience and was only an Oath of Abjuration of Heresie not imposed but taken freely no common Oath of Bishops nor any thing touching the Royalties of St. Peter as may be seen Greg. Epist 1. 10. Ep. 30. Indic 5. About an hundred years after in the time of Gregory the Ninth they extended the subjects of the Oath as well as the matter enlarging it from Arch-Bishops to all Prelates Bishops Abbots Priors and now they cry up the Canons above all Imperial Laws But to decide this point of swearing Allegiance to the Pope which could not be done without going in person to Rome it is sufficient that by all our Laws no Clergyman could go to Rome without the Kings Licence and that by an ancient Brittannick Law if any subject enter into League with another Prince professing Fidelity Hect. Boeth Hist and obedience to any one besides the King let him loose his head But let us admit that
the Pope eleven hundred years after Christ got possession of the English Church and the Conscience of the Bishops by Investiture and Oaths who will shew us that he had it sooner who will maintain that he kept it quietly till Hen. 8 This last point will be clear by examining 2. Law our Laws the second Topick propounded at the beginning of this discourse For if his Possession were good it was setled in Law and if quiet the Laws were not made to oppose it by the great States of the Kingdom My Lord Bramhall hath produced three great Laws as sufficient to determine this Controversie 1. Clarendon whether the King or the Pope be Patron of the English Church the Assize of Clarendon Statute of Carlisle and of Provisors The first tells us plainly that the Election of an Arch-Bishop Bishop Abbot and Prior was to be made by the respective dignitaries upon the Kings calling them together to that purpose and with the Kings consent And then the Person elected was presently to do homage to the King as his Liege Lord. And that this method was exclusive of the In Ed. 1. Pope that of Carlisle is very distinct The King is the founder of all Bishopricks and ought to 2. Carlisle have the custody of them in the Vacances and the Right of Patronage to present to them and that the Bishop of Rome usurping the right of Patronage giveth them to Aliens That this tendeth to Annullation of the State of holy Church to the disinheriting of Kings and the destruction of the Realm This is an Oppression and shall not be Suffered The Statute of Provisors 15. Ed. 3. affirms that Elections were first granted by Kings Progenitors Provisors upon Condition to demand Licence of the King to Chuse and after the Election to have the Royal Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to return to its first Nature And therefore they conclude that in Case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch-Bishoprick c. The King and his Heirs shall have the Collations for the same time such as his Progenitors had before the free Elections were granted And they tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown is such and the Law of the Land too that the King is bound to make Remidies and Laws against such Mischiefs And acknowledg that he is Advower Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benefices which are of the Advowrie of holy Church i. e. Soveraign patron of it My Lord Coke more abundantly adds the Wil. 1. Resolutions and Decrees of the Law to confirm us in the Point In the time of William the 7. Ed. 3. tit qu. i. e. p. 19. first it is agreed that no man only can make any Appropriation of any Church having cure of Souls but he that hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but William the first did make such Appropriations of himself without any other Edward the first presented his Clerke who was refused by the Arch-Bishop for that the Ed. 1. Pope by way of Provision had conferred it on another The King brought his quare non admisit the Arch-Bishop pleaded the Supremacy of the Pope and that he durst not nor had power to put him out which was by the Popes Bull in Possession for which by judgment of the Common Law the Lands of his whole Bishoprick were seized into the Kings hands and lost during his life And my Lord Coke's Note upon it is that this Judgment was before any Statute was made in that Case In the Reign of Edw. 3. it is often resolved Ed. 3. that all the Bishopricks within England were founded by the Kings Progenitors and therefore the Advowsons of them all belong to the King and at the first they were Donative And that if any Incumbent dye the Lapse comes to the Bishop then to the Arch-Bishop and lastly by the common Law to the King as to the Supreme within his own Kingdom and not to the Bishop of Rome This King presented to a Benefice his Presentee 21 Ed. 3. 40. f. 40. was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulls from Rome for which offence he was condemned to perpetual Imprisonment It is no small spice of the Kings Ecclesiastical Patronage that we find the King made Canons secular to be Regular and that he made the Prior and Covent of Westminster a distinct Corporation from the Abbot 38. li. Ass pl. 22. 49. Ed. 3. l. Ass pl. 8. But more full is the case of Abbot Moris who sent to Rome to be confirmed by the Pope who 46 Ed. 3. Tit. praem 6. by his Bull sleighted the Election of Moris but gave him the Abby of his spiritual Grace and at the request as he feigned of the King of England This Bull was read and considered of in Council that is before all the Judges of England and it was resolved by them all that this Bull was against the Laws of England and that the Abbot for obtaining the same was faln into the Kings mercy whereupon all his Possessions were seiz'd into the Kings hands In the Reign of Richard the Second one sued 12 Rich. 2. Tit. Juris 18. a provision in the Court of Rome against an Incumbent recovered the Church brought an action of account for Oblations c. but the whole Court was of opinion against the Plaintiff and thereupon he was non-suit Vid. Stat. 16. Rich. 2. c. 5. against all Papal Usurpations and this in particular the pain is a praemunire In Hen. 4 s Reign the Judges say that the Statutes which restrain the Popes Provisions to the Benefices 11 H. 4. f. 69 70. of the Advowsons of spiritual men were made for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the Popes Provisions so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common Laws Now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the Popes Patronage of our Church at least as to his possession of it against so many plain and great Evidences both of Law and Deed All pretences touching the Popes giving the Pall are more than anticipated For it is not to be denied but that was not held necessary either to the consceration confirmation or investiture of the very Arch-Bishop before Anselm's time Yea 't is manifest that Lanfrank Anselm and Raulf did dedicate Churches consecrate Bishops and Abbots and were called Arch-Bishops while they had no Pall as Twisden proves out of Eadmer P. 47. We never read that either Laurentius or Milletus received the Pall from Rome who no doubt were as lawful Arch-Bishops as Austin Girald and Hoveden both give us an account that Sampson of St. Davids had a Pall but do not say from Rome and though in the time of infection he carried it away with him After Paulinus there are five in the Catalogue of York expresly said to have wanted it and Wilfred was one of
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
conclude that whatever they thought of the Primacy of dignity they did not believe themselves or give occasion to others to believe that they had then the Jurisdiction of England much less of the whole World Indeed the Powers of Emperors over Popes Vid. King James's defence p. 50. was exercised severely and continued long in practice an 654. Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin an 963. Otho rejected Pope John 13. and made Leo 8. Pope and John 14. Gregory 5. and Sylvester 2. were made Popes by the Otho's an 1007. Hen. 2. deposed three Popes this practice is confessed till Gregory 7. and before An. 679. Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their Investitures of them by submissive terms and bowing the knee before them Platin. Baron Segeb. SECT VIII Nor the Words of the Imperial Law IF the Ancient Councils or practice or Popes themselves offered nothing to perswade our Ancestors to a belief of the Pope's Vniversal Power or Possession of England Certainly we may despair of finding any such thing in the Ancient Laws of the Church which are justly presumed to contain the Sense and Rule of all were all other Records of Antiquity silent saith our late Primate the Civil Law is proof enough for that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church and not only so it being the Imperial as well as Canon Law it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole World Now what saith the Law it first forbids the Title and then the Practice Primae sedis Apostolus the Patriarch or Bishop Cor. Jur. Can. de pâ— 1. dist 99. c. 3. Can. 4. of the first See is not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest nor as the African Canon adds aliquid hujusmodi any other thing of that kind The practice of any such Power was expresly forbidden and not the proud Title only the very Text of the Law saith à Patriarcha non datur Appellatio from a Patriarch there lies no Appeal Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Auth. Collat. 9. Tit. 15. c. 22. And this we have found agreeable to the Mâ—livetane Council where Saint Augustine was Can. 23. present forbidding under pain of Excommunication any Appeal to any Foreign Councils or Judicatures and this is again Consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice as that was to the thirty fourth Apostolick where the Primate in every Nation is to be accounted their Head Now what do our Adversaries say to this Indeed they seem to be put to it and though their Wits are very pregnant to deliver many Answers such as they be in most Cases they all seem to joyn in one poor slight Evasion here namely that the Laws concerning Appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the African Canon and acknowledged in that Councils Epistle to Pope Boniface Three bold Sayings first that the Law concerned not the Appeals of Bishops 2. The Council of Africa decreed Bishops Appeals to Rome 3. And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface but are these things as truly as boldly said for the first which is their Comment whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws to the exclusion of the Bishops we shall consider their ground for it and then propose our reason and the Law expresly against it and then their Reasons will need little answer Object They say the Law reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves Sol. But if there should happen a difference betwixt a Patriarch and the Pope who shall decide that both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General Council But why should the Law allow Forreign Appeals to Bishops and not to Priests Are all Bishops Patriarchs is not a Patriarch over his Bishops as well as a Bishop over his Priests may not the Gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop or the difference among Priests be as Caelestus necessity of Grace Milev Con. considerable to the Church sometimes as among Bishops or hath not the universal Pastor if the Pope be so power over and care of Priests as well as Bishops or can the Summum imperium receive limits from Canon or Law to say that Priests are forbidden to appeal but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals is plainly to cripple the Law and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end But what if this very Canon they pretend to allow Appeals from Bishops to Rome do expresly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow and it doth so undeniably as appears in Can. 28. the Authentick Collection of the African Canons non provocent adtransmarina Judicia sed ad primates suarum Provinciarum aut ad universale Concilium sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est The same thing had often been determined in the case of Bishops Obj. Perron and others say this clause was not in the ancient Milevetan Canons Sol. Have they nothing else but this groundless conceit to support their universal Pastorship against express Law for four hundred years after Christ Sure it behoved highly to produce a true Authentick Copy of those Canons wherein that clause is omitted which because they do not we conclude they cannot However it is manifest that the same thing against appeals of Bishops to Rome had been often determined by far greater Testimony than the bare assertion of Perron and his Partners viz. that general Council of Carthage An. D. 419. about three years after that Milevetan at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils which Justellus mentions and wherein no doubt that point had been often determined and out of them all composed that Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae with that clause inserted as appears both in the Greek and many ancient latine Copies and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincmarmus proves as well as others Gratius confesseth it but adds this Antidote Nifi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit i. e. None shall appeal to Rome the main design of the Council except they do appeal to Rome not expounding the Canon but exposing himself and that excellent Council Obj. But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Boniface as was before noted and thence proves that the Council acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome Sol. 'T is true they do say that in a Letter written a year before to Zosimus they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome This is true but scarce honest the next words in the Letter spoil the Argument and the sport too for they further say that because the Pope contended that the appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire
them yet are reputed both Vid. Twisd ibid. Arch-Bishops and Saints and of others in that series it is not easie to prove they ever used it nor Adilbaldus till the fourth year after his Investiture And Gregory the Great saith that it ought not to be given nisi fortiter Postulanti What this Honorary was anciently seems uncertain but 't is most certain it could evacuate the Kings Legal and natural Patronage of our Church or discharge the Bishops from their dependance on and Allegiance to his Crown 'T is true indeed when Pope Nicolaus could not deny it he was graciously pleased to grant this Patronage to Edward the Confessor Vobis posteris c. commattimus advocationem c. We Baron an 1059. n. 23 commit the Advowson of all the Churches of England to you and your Successors Kings of England It might have been replied Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium quod ex Paterno jure susceperat praebuit as the Emperors Advocate said This is too mean as well as too remote a spring of our Kingly power in the Church of England though it might ad hominem sufficiently supersede one would think all Papal practises against so plain and full a grant if any thing passed by it certainly it must be that very power of Advowson that the Popes afterwards so much pretended and our Laws mentioned were made on purpose to oppose them in We see no reason therefore against the Statute of Hen. 8. so agreeable to the ancient Rights and Laws of this Realm Be it enacted that no person shall be Presented Nominated or Commended to the Pope to or for the dignity of an Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm nor shall send or procure thence for any manner of Bulls Briefs Palls or other things requisite for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop all such viz. Applications and Instruments shall utterly cease and no longer be used within this Realm and such as do contrary to this Act shall run in danger of the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire H. 8. 25 20. CHAP. XIII Of Peter Pence and other Moneys formerly paid to the Pope UPon Complaint by Parliament in 25 Hen. 8. 21. Henry the Eighth's Reign of intolerable exactions of great Sums of money by the Pope as well in Pensions Censes Peter-pence Procurations c. and for infinite sorts of Bulls c. otherwise than by the Laws and Customs of the Realm should be permitted It was enacted that no Person should thenceforth pay any such Pensions Peter pence c. but that all such payments should thence-forth clearly surcease and never more be levied taken or paid and all Annates or First-Fruits and Tenths of 25 Hen. 8. 20. Arch-Bishops and Bishops were taken away and forbidden to be paid to the Pope the year before Our Payments to the Court of Rome seem to have been of four sorts Peter-pence First-Fruits and Tenths Casual for Palls Bulls c. and extraordinary Taxations briefly of each 1. For Peter-pence the only Ancient payment Peter-pence it was at first given and received as an Alms Eleemosina Beati Petri saith Paschalis 2. Ep. Hen. 1. apud Eadm p. 113. 27. Perhaps rendred out of Gratitude and Reverence to the See of Rome to which England was no doubt frequently obliged for their care and Council and other assistances and by continuance this Alms and gratitude obtained the name of Rent and was Metaphorically called sometimes Tributum but never anciently understood Vid. Twisd p. â—5 to acknowledge the Pope as Superior Lord of a Lay-fee But when the Pope changed Advice into Precept and Counsel into Law and Empire and required Additions with other grievous Exactions unto his Peter-pence it was a proper time to be better advised of our selves and not to encourage such a wild Vsurpation with the continuance of our Alms or gratitude This Alms was first given by a Saxon King but by whom it is not agreed but that there was no other payment besides this made to Rome before the year 1246. appears for that though there was much complaint and controversie about our payments we find the omission of no payment instanced in but of that duty only neither do the Body of our Kingdom in their Remonstrance to Innocent the Fourth 1246. mention any other as claimed from hence to Rome Yet this payment as it was not from the beginning and as it was at first but an Alms so it was not continued without some interruptions when Rome had given Arguments of sufficient provocation both in the times of William the First and Henry his Son and Henry the Second this latter during the Dispute with Becket and Alex. 3. commanded the Sheriffs through England that Peter-pence should be gathered and kept quousque inde Dominus Rex voluntatem suam praeceperit Historians observe that Edward the Third during the French war gave command that no Peter-pence should be gathered or paid to Rome Stow An. 1365. and the Restraint continued all that Prince's time for his Successor Richard the Second at the beginning of his Reign caused John Wickliff to consider the Point who concludes those payments being no other than Alms the Kingdom was not obliged to continue them longer Vid. Twisden p. 76. than it stood with its Convenience and not to its detriment or Ruine according to the Rule in Divinity extra Casus Necessitatis Superfluitatis Eleemosyna non est in praecepto Indeed in the Parliament held the same year the question was made and a Petition preferred which surely was some kind of disturbance of the payment against them with no effect the King restored them and the payment of them continued till Hen. 8. So much for Peter-pence for the other payments 2. First-Fruits viz. First-Fruits and Tenths and the Casual payments for Bulls c. they so evidently depend on the Pope's Supremacy for Legislation Jurisdiction and Dispensation that they are justly denied with it however we shall briefly examine the Rise and the Possession of them For the Annates and Tenths which the Pope Clemang Platina Pol. Virg. received from our Arch-Bishops and Bishops the Historians agree that England of all Nations never submitted to the full extent of the Papal Commands or Expectations which no doubt was occasioned by the good Laws made here against them There is difference amongst Writers in De Scysm 6. lib. 2. c. 9. whose time the First-Fruits began to be taken Theodoricus a Niem saith Boniface 9. about the Tenth year of his Government was the first that reserved them with whom Platina agrees In vit Bon. 9. de inven Rer. l. 8. c. 2. and Polid. Virgil and many others as Twisden notes and Walsingham reduces them but to 1316. Hist An. 1316. p. 84 85. But the question is how long the Pope quietly enjoyed them the Kingdom was so intolerably burthened with Papal Taxes before of which we shall speak hereafter and these First-Fruits and Tenths
and not as our Lord. The true Question is whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope and directly appointed him to be the Vniversal Pastor of his Church on Earth so that the Controversie will bear us down to the last Chapter what ever can be said here and Infallibility is such a Medium as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument obscurum per obscurius and indeed if there be any inseperable Connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Vniversal Pastorship as is pretended the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it with this wonderful grace of Infallibility But it doth not appear that God hath invested any one man with that Power therefore not with that Grace But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much let us at present allow the Consequence but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption viz. that the Pope is indeed Infallible I am aware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility but if we will put them out of the way then the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topicks we can desire Scripture Tradition and Reason let them be heard in their Order SECT 1. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles 1. VVHether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me I know not but I cannot bring my self to believe that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive can seriously think the Pope Infallible in the Popish Sence of the Word especially that the holy Scriptures prove it I know that some flie the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible 't is so as it is Representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other and how shall that which is Common to all give power to one over all or what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of Rome that is begging a great question indeed for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility which his Infallibility ought to prove and to prove the Medium by the thing in question after a new Logick Besides if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church in either of the Sences it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church if there be no Infallibility God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls and the Government of his Church for seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined to govern it self but as Collected and seeing as the Christian World is now circumstantiated it is next to impossible we should have a General and free Council how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted upon all occasions for the Ends aforesaid It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope or Court of Rome however let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it either in the Pope or Court or Church of Rome in any acception which is first drawn from Scripture both Examples and Promises Arg. 1. From Scripture-Examples they reason thus the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Low were Infallible therefore the Pope and his Clergy are so now the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Law were so as appears Deut 17. 8. where in doubts the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgment which supposeth them Infallible in it as A. C. argues with Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 97. n. 1. Ans Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this Argument beyond all reply In short the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility viz. That the Pope is High-Priest of the Christian Church and we must still expect an Argument for the Popes Headship if this must be granted that we may prove him Infallible to the end we may prove his Headship Were it said to the Christian Church when any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to Rome and there enquire the judgment of the Bishop and believe his determinations to be Infallible there had been no need of this consequence but seeing we read no such thing the consequence is worth nothing Besides the minor affirming the Infallibility of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Minor Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment Infallible The same obligation lies upon Christians in all judiciary Causes especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices though not in our judgment or Conscience to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true A violence that neither the whole world nor a mans self can sometimes do to the Reason of a man The Text is so plain not to concern matters of Doctrine to be decided whether true or false but matters of Justice to be determined whether right or wrong that one would think the very reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it The words are viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea and between Stroke and Stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Thus God established a Court of Appeals a Supreme Court of Judicature to which the last application was to be made both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty called the great Sanhedrin But note here is no direction for address to this Court but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts held in the Gates of the Cities Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts Therefore it is not said whosoever doth not believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever Deut. 17. 12. acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will not hearken but do presumptuously even that man shall die Besides God still supposeth a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel Lev. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way frequently by the Prophets But alas where was the Infallibility of the High-Priest c. when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him and by this very Court of the Sanhedrin And when Israel had been for a long season without
especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have
and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. Arg. 1 From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable Ans 'T is plainly answered that to know which is the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes for Primates over Provinces not for an universal Monarch either over the world or the whole Church Arg. 2 2. The Church cannot be propogated as Bell. argues
the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep and members of his Church Hart and Ray. p 129. Ans Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep but he doth say to them all Preach to every Creature And if Peter have power over the rest because they are Sheep and he is to feed the Sheep then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature and they are to preach to every Creature But this is trifling so is all that is further argued from this Text though by Feeding we understand Ruling Ruling of Pastors or what you will while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within the same Commission wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before and that of Bellarmine that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the Apostles as extraordinary Embassadors is altogether as groundless as if there were any colour of Reason that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador Dr. Hammond observes Bellarmine was not 13 Oct. 1562. the Author of that Artifice Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent where the Bishop of Granada derided it and the Authors of it and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed that Cajetan was about 50 years before the first deviser of it The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen as he affirmed Concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11. To conclude this matter Feed my Sheep are not a ground for the Popes Presidency which are found not to be so of Peter's above the body of the Universal Church as was publickly pronounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors and appears by the Opusc of John Patriarch of Antioch And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23. time makes them words of Precept not of Institution and both are agreeable to the interpretatiou of the Ancients St. Ambrose de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21 c. It is time to look further The third great place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being Luk. 22. 31 converted strengthen thy Brethren Whence Hart reasons thus Christ commands Peter to strengthen Rayn and Hart. p. 142. his Brethren and his Brethren were the Apostles Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head Ans When Hart urged this Argument with all his wit and might and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident there is no Authority given by the words nor carried in the word Strengthen that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church he confesseth with Stapleton that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection when he said to him Feed my Lambs which we have weighed before but those words of strengthning c. he spake before his death and did but futuram insinuaverat insinuate therein and as Harts word is that he would make him Supreme Head then if he did not make him so afterward he did it not at all That Peter had power over the rest of the 4 Scrip. Apostles would be proved as before from the Promise and Commission of Christ so at last by Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a Act. 1. 25. new Apostle in the Room of Judas Ans Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch Obj. But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's modesty was commendable for doing all things by common advice and consent and nothing by In Matth. 40. 51. his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Ans Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again In Matth. Hom. 15. he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles not the donation of Christ as Hart Rayn Hart. p. 156. confesseth But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity and 't is he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself The Scripture saith not that he might yea it saith he did not And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this that he did not execute it Besides many Fathers and in Council too together with St. Cyprian pronounce that Peter proposing the matter to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice did according to the lessons and Precepts of God therefore jure divino they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shews p. 159. But when Peter had been heard all the Multitude held their peace and James and all the 5 Scrip. Act. 15. Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence Ans What is this to prove his Supremacy because the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Head and Superior to the High-Priest and Act. 3. 34. Council And if Jerom say Peter was Princeps Decreti he acknowledged perhaps the Reason the Motion and the Delivery or declaration of it principally to Peter the first Author of the Sentence as the same Jerom calls him and explains himself Epist 11. inter Epistol August So was Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was Pro Cor. Balbo neither President nor Prince of the Senate We conclude that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles or the whole Church because it neither was promised him nor given him nor Peter added Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas Not inferior to the chief Apost 2 Cor. 11. 5. Executed by him notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue many of them being uncertain some vain and trifling and some common with the rest of the Apostles but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter 5. 'T is indeed said by some of the Fathers So Paul judged Chris Hom. 12. 2. 87. that the Government of the World and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship for they say the same of Paul ille Solusgerebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orbis praefectam suscepit and the like of Timothy who was never reputed Vniversal Monarck Paul and Peter had two different Primacies Saint Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud. Ambr. had the same Dignity Chrisost were equal Oecumenius CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession I Have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's Supremacy because though the Consequence be not good
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.