kept their ancient bounds But now when the State of the Empire is altogether changed the Provinces confounded and the Dominions divided among lesser Kings who are sometimes in hostility one with another and the Subjects of one Prince cannot freely nor securely repair for Justice into the Dominions of a forrein Prince without prejudice to themselves and danger to their native Country It is very meet that the Subjects of every Soveraign Prince should have finall Justice within the Dominions of their own Soveraign as well in Ecclesiasticall causes as Politicall And this is agreeable with the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England which neither permit a Subject in such cases to goe out of the Kingdome nor any forrein Commissioner to enter into the Kingdome without the Kings license Upon this ground the Bishops of Scotland were freed from their obedience to the Primate of York and the Bishops of Muscovia from the Patriarch of Constantinople But saith he That which is for the benefit of the Kingdome may be contrary to the good of the Church and should we prefer a Kingdome before the Church the Body before the Soul Earth before Heaven I answer that gain and losse advantage and disadvantage ought not to be weighed or esteemed from the consideration of one or two circumstances or emergents All charges damages and reprises must first be cast up and deducted before one can give a right estimate of benefit or losse If a Merchant doe reckon only the price which his commodity cost him beyond Sea without accounting Customes Freight and other charges he will soon perish his Pack If the benefit be only temporall and the losse Spirituall as to gain Gold and lose Faith which is more precious then Gold that perisheth it is no benefit but losse What should it advantage a man to gain the whole World and lose his own Soul The English Church and the English Kingdome are one and the same Society of men differing not really but rationally one from another in respect of some distinct relations As the Vine and the Elm that susteins it they florish together and decay together Bonum ex singulis circumstantiis that which is truely good for the Kingdome of England cannot be ill for the Church of England and that which is truely good for the English Church cannot be ill for the English Kingdome We may in reason distinguish between Alexanders friend who studies to please him and the Kings friend who gives him good advise The one is a friend to his person the other to his office But in truth whilest Alexander is King and the person and office are united he that is a true friend to Alexander is no enemy to the King and he who is a true friend to the King is no foe to Alexander Indeed if by the Church he understand the Court of Rome then that which was good for the Kingdome of England was prejudiciall to the Church in point of temporall profit But seeing as he confesseth The Soul is to be preferred before the Body it turns to their greater advantage by lessening the account of their extortions He addeth That a Kingdome is but a part of the Church and it is not in the power of any part only for its particular profit to alter what is instituted by the universall Church for her universall good no more then it is in the power of a part of the Kingdome as one Shire or Province to alter for its private inâ—erest what hath been decreed by Parliament for the good of the Kingdome His instance of a Shire or a Province is altogether impertinent for no particular Shire or Province in England hath Legislative authority at all as the Kingdome hath But particular Corporations being invested with power from the Crown to make Ordinances for the more commodious government of themselves may make and doe make ordinarily by Lawes and Ordinances not contra against the Acts of Parliament but praeter besides the Acts of Parliament And let him goe but a little out of the Kingdome of England as suppose into the Isle of Man or into Ireland though they be branches of the English Empire yet he shall finde that they have distinct Parliaments which with the concurrence of the King have ever heretofore enjoyed a power to make Lawes for themselves contrary to the Lawes of the English Parliament But we are so far from seeking to abrogate or to alter any institution of the universall Church or its representative a generall Councell in this case that on the contrary we crave the benefit of their Decrees and submit all our differences to their decision No generall Councell did ever give to the See of Rome Jurisdiction over Britain And though they had yet the state of things being quite changed it were no disobedience to vary from them in circumstances whilest we persist in their grounds To make my word good I will suppose the case to have been quite otherwise then it was That Protestants had made the separation That they had had no ancient Laws for presidents That the Britannick Churches had not enjoyed the Cyprian priviledge for the first six hundred years Yea I will suppose for the present That our Primates were no Primates or Patriarchs And that the Britannick Churches had been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by generall Councells Yet all this supposed upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire and the great variation of affairs since that time it had been very lawfull for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishops of Rome though they had not quitted their Patriarchate and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves Provided that what I write only upon supposition he doe not hereafter allege as spoken by way of concession We have seen formerly in this chapter that the establishment of Primates or Patriarchs and Metropolitans in such and such Sees was meerly to comply and conforme themselves to the Edicts and civill constitutions of Sovereign Princes for the ease and advantage of Christians and to avoid confusion and clashing of Jurisdiction That where there was a civill Exarch and Protarch established by the Emperour there should be an ecclesiasticall Primate or Patriarch And where a Citie was honoured with the name and priviledge of a Metropolis or mother Citie there should be a Metropolitan Bishop The practise of Bishops could not multiply these dignities but the Edicts of Emperors could And this was in a time when the Emperors were Pagans and Infidells Afterwards when the Emperours were become Christians if they newly founded or newly dignified an Imperiall Citie or a Metropolis they gave the Bishop thereof a proportionable ecclesiasticall preheminence at their good pleasure Either with a Councell as the Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon with the consent and confirmation of Theodosius and Martian Emperours did advance the Bishop of Constantinople from being a mean Suffragan under the Metropolitan of
Prince or Princes but a whole succession of Kings with their convocations and Parliaments proceeding according to the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome So he might have spared his instances of Saul and Uzziah But he faith that what King Henry did in such matters was plainly against his own conscience as appeareth by his frequent and earnest desires to be reunited to the Pope It is a bold presumption in him to take upon him to judge of another mans conscience God alone knows the secret turnings and windings of the heart of man Though he had desired a reconciliation with Rome yet charity requires that we should rather judge that he had changed his minde then that he violated his conscience Neither will this uncharitable censure if it were true advantage his cause the black of a bean His conscience might make the reformation sinfull in him but not unlawfull in it self The lawfullness or unlawfullness of the Action within it self depends not upon the conscience of the doer but the merit of the thing done His witnesses are Bishop Gardiner and Nicholas Sanders The former a great Counsellor of King Henry a contriver of the oath a propugner of the Kings Supremacy both in print and in his Sermons and a persecutor of them who opposed it For a Preacher to preach against his own conscience comes neer the sin against the holy Ghost He had reason to say he was constrained both to hide his own shame and to flatter the Pope after his revolt whom he had so much opposed especially in the dayes of Queen Marie Otherwise he had missed the Chancellership of England and it may be had suffered as a Schismatick Yet let us hear what he faith that King Henry had a purpose to resigne the Supremacy when the tumult was in the North And that he was imployed to the Emperor to desire him to be a mediator to the Pope about it All this might have been and yet no intention of reconciliation Great Princes many times look one way and row another And if an overture or an empty pretence will serve to quash a Rebellion or prevent a forrein warre will make no scruple to use it But upon Bishop Gardiners credit in this cause we cannot beleeve it This was one of them who writ that menacing Letter to the Pope just before the reformation that if he did not hear them certe interpretabimur nostri nobis curam esse relictam ut aliunde nobis remedia conquiramus they would certainly interpret it that they were left to themselves to take care of themselves to seeke their remedy from elsewhere This was a faire intimation and they were as good as their words This was the man who writ the book de vera obedientia downright for the Kings Supremacie against the Pope Lastly this is who published to the world that all sorts of People with us were agreed upon this point with most sted fast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome It had been strange indeed that all sorts of People should be unanimous in the point and the King alone goe against his conscience His later witness Nicholas Sanders is just such another whose Book de schismate is brim full of virulent slanders and prodigious fictions against King Henry He feineth that when his death did draw nigh he began to deal privately with some Bishops of the way how he might be reconciled to the See Apostolick Testimony he produceth none but his own Authority They who will not beleeve it may chuse But that which followeth spoileth the credit of his relation That one of the Bishops being doubtfull whether this might not be a trap to catch him answered that the King was wiser then all men that he had cast off the Popes Supremacy by divine inspiration and had nothing now to fear That a King should be laying snares to catch his Bâ—shops apprepinquante hora mortis when the very hour of his death was drawing near and that a Bishop should flatter a dying man so abhominably against his conscience as he makes this to be is not credible But there is a third Author alleged by others who deserved more credit That it was but the coming two dayes short of a Post to Rome which hindred that the reconcilement was not actually made But here is a double mistake first in the time this was in the year 1533. before the separation was made currente Rota Some intimations had been given of what was intended but the Bell was not then rung out Certainly the breach must goe before the reconcilement in order of time Secondly in the Subject this treaty was not about the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over the English Church but about the divorce of King Henry and Queen Katherine The words are these That if the Pope would supersede from executing his sentence untill he the King had indifferent Judges who might hear the business he would also supersede of what he was deliberated to doe in withdrawing his obedience from the Roman See The Bishop of Paris procured this proposition from the King and delivered it at Rome It was not accepted The Kings answer came not within the time limited Thereupon the Pope published his Sentence and the Separation followed So this was about the change of a Wife not of Religion before either King Henrys substraction of obedience or the Popes fulmination In the next place he distinguisheth between the Pope and the Papacy acknowledging That it may be lawfull in some cases to substract obedience from the Pope but in no case from the Papacy which he presumeth but doth not prove to be of divine institution whereas Protestants saith he for the faults of some Popes have separated themselves both from Pope Papacy and Roman Church And here again he falls upon his former needless Theme That personall faults are no sufficient ground of a revolt from a good institution If he had been pleased to observe it I took away this distinction before it was made shewing that the personall faults of Popes or their Ministers ought not to reflect upon any but the persons guilty but faulty principles in Doctrine or Discipline doe warrant a more permanent separation even untill they be reformed I doe acknowledge the distinction of Pope Papacy and Church of Rome but I deny that we have separated from any one of them for the faults of another As the Pope may have his proper faults so may the Papacy so may the Church of Rome We have separated our selves from the Church of Rome only in those things wherein she had first separated her self from the ancient Roman Church In all other things we maintain communion with her We are ready to yeeld the Pope all that respect which is due to the Bishop of an Apostolicall Church and whatsoever externall honor the Fathers did think fit to cast upon that See if he
World Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssene Russian Protestant which after all their brags of amplitude and universality is three times greater then themselves I desire no fairer issue between him and me I doe from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the World doth beleeve and practise And if I should erre in my judgement what the Catholick Church is as I am confident that he and his fellowes doe erre though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement I doe furthermore proâ—ess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me This is sufficient to preserve me from being a Schismatick This is sufficient for the salvation of a Christian. He telleth us indeed sometimes that the Roman Church is the true Catholick Church and is diffused all over the World Let him take Roman in the largest sense he can yet still it is but a particular Church of one denomination not Catholick or Universall Whom have they of their Communion in the large Abystene Empire consisting of seventeen Kingdomes Not one Whom have they of their Communion in the Russian Empire neerer home Scarcely one Whom have they of their Communion in all the Eastern Churches perhaps two or three hand-fulls in comparison of those innumerable multitudes of Christians who are subject to the other Patriarchs Before they were so forward and positive in voting for themselves that they are the Catholick Church that they are the infallible Judge it had been meet that they had first agreed among themselves what this Catholick Church is to which every Christian is bound to submit whether it be the virtuall Church that is the Pope or the Pope jointly with his Conclave of Cardinalls or the Pope with a provinciall Councell or the Pope with a generall Councell that is the representative Church or a generall Councell without the Pope or lastly the essentiall Church dispersed over the face of the World for into so many opinions they are divided He addeth that these great multitudes of Christians whereof we speak are not united among themselves but divided in points of Faith in communion of Sacraments and the ministery of them Let Saint Austine answer him Acutum autem aliquid videris dicere cum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis Communione interpretaris sed ex observatione Praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum Thou seemest to thy self to speak very wittily when thou doest not interpret the Catholick Church by the Communion of the whole World but by the Catholick Faith and the right observation of all the Sacraments and true Discipline that is in their sense submission to the Roman Court This last badge which Saint Austin did not know is the only defect of those multitudes of Christians that they will not acknowledge the monarchicall Power of the Roman Bishop As we have seen by experience that when some few of these Eastern or Northern Christians have reconciled themselves to the See of Rome and acknowledged the Papacy they were streight adjudged Orthodox and sound Christians in all other things And the latter of these did provide expresly for themselves at the time of their submission that they would retein their Greekish Religion and Rites He himself in this very place confesseth them to agree in fundamentall points that is to be free from fundamentall errors And for other lesser Controversies they have not half so many among them as the Romanists among themselves As to his marginall note out of Turtullian That Heretici pacem cum omnibus miscent Hereticks mingle themselves with all Sects making it a Symtome of Heresie to be over easie in admitting others to their Communion I doe confess it is a fault indeed But first what doth this concern the Church of England Secondly the greater fault lies on the other hand to be over severe and over vigorous and censorious in casting out or holding others from their Communion and more dangerous to the Church of Christ. In this kinde offended the Donatists the Novatians the Luciferians of old And the Romanists at this day This hath more of the Patriarchall Garbe in it stand from me for I am holier then thou CHAP. 7. That all Princes and Republiks of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same things which King Henry did WE are come now unto his seventh Chapter wherein I am much beholden to him for easing me of the labour of replying For whereas I proved my intention at large by the Acts Laws and Decrees of the Emperors with their Councels and Synods and Electorall College by the Laws of France the Liberties of the Gallicane Church the Acts of their Parliaments and Declarations of their Universities by the practice of the King of Spain his Councels his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders by the sobbes of Portugall and their bleatings and the Judgment of the University of Lisbone by the Laws and Proclamations and other Acts of the Republick of Venice throughout 68 pages He vouchsafeth not to take notice of any one particular of all this except only some few heads of what I urged concerning the Emperors which he reciteth in lesse then one page and never attempts to answer one syllable of them in particular Yet are these so diametrally opposite to the pretended rights of the Pope his Legislative power his convocating of Synods his confirming Synods his sending out Bulls his receiving Appeals his Patronage of Churches his Pardons and Dispensations his Exemption from all humane judgment his sending of Legates his Tenths and first Fruits his Superiority above generall Councels his Excommunications and in a word his whole Spirituall Sovereignty that nothing can be more opposite In these presidents we did clearly see that essentiall power and right of Sovereignty which I plead for in this Book to make Ecclesiasticall Laws for the externall regiment of the Church to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to reform Ecclesiasticall errors and abuses to be the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances to restrain Ecclesiasticall tyranny and to see that all Ecclesiasticall persons within their Dominions doe their duties And if these instances were not enough many more might be produced of the best Christian Princes Paul the third writ to Charles the fifth That the Decrees of Spira were dangerous to his Soul commands him to put away all disputes of Religion from the Imperiall Diet and referre them to the Pope to order nothing concerning Ecclesiasticall goods to revoke the grants made unto the Rebells against the See of Rome Otherwise he should be forced to use greater severity against him then he would Yet Cardinall de Monte was more angry then his Master saying That he would put his Holinesse in minde rather to abandon the See and restore the Keies to Saint Peter then suffer the Secular power to arrogate Authority to
the politicall Head of the Church It was concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in so sublime a question concerning the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in this exigence of affairs being in his voyage in the presence of his Brother and fellow Emperor who was an Arrian and a great persecutor of all those who held the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father whose Subjects these Bishops were as they found to their cost presently after his return from accompanying of his Brother some part of his way what more prudent or more plausible answer could so moderate a Prince have given then that he did give Though we give to Sovereign Princes within their own Dominions a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes yet not without good advise especially in such high points of Faith as that was and who are more fit Counselors for Princes in such cases then Synods and Bishops The same method is observed by us at this day The Synod contrives fit Articles and Canons and the King confirms them and makes them Lawes But did Valentinian nothing himself in such cases but leave all to Priests No. He himself confirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father quam etiam nostra celsitudo passim praedicari mandavit Which our Highnesse hath commanded to be Preached every where This very Valentinian was one of the Authors of that famous Law to represse the covetousnesse of the Clergy which Saint Ambrose and Saint Hierome doe so much complain of not against the Emperors who made the Law but against the Clergy who deserved it In the Code we finde Ecclesiasticall Lawes made by this very Valentinian as that to Florianus That a Bishop rebaptizing one who had been formerly Baptized out of ignorance of the Law should be deprived of his Bishoprick It was this very Valentinian of whom Theodorit speaketh that in Occidentem profectus c. Going into the West he furnished that Region with excellent Lawes and did begin with the Preaching of true Piety He convocated the Bishops and commanded them in the place of Auxentius an Arrian to chuse an Orthodox Bishop for the See of Millaine and after some debates they did chuse Saint Ambrose Some may say if it was his right why did he not chuse him himself I answer that the Synod of Bishops did desire him to chuse one as knowing his right and when Saint Ambrose was chosen and refused for a time jubet Ambrosium extemplo initiari mysteriis Episcopum ordinari The Emperor commanded him forthwith to be initiated in the holy Mysteries and to be ordeined Bishop Neither was this the case of Constantine or Theodosius or Valentinian alone Socrates writes more generally That from Constantines time when the Emperors became Christians Ecclesiasticall affaires seemed to depend upon their beck His fifth witnesse is Basilius Basilius Emperor in the seventh Synod speaketh thus to the Laity He is mistaken Basilius was no Emperor in the time of the seventh Synod but Constantine and Irene but it is true that in the time of the 8 th Synod Basilius was Emperor and made a Speech to the Laity The case is this one Bardas a Patrician and Michael the former Emperor by their unseasonable and preposterous intermedling in Ecclesiastieall businesses had brought the Orientall Church into great dangers whereupon Basilius then Emperor useth these words Nullo modo nobis licet c. It is no way lawfull for us Laymen to move Speech of Ecclesiasticall causes nor at all to resist the whole Church and oppose an universall Synod For the searching and inquisition into these things belongs to Patriarchs Bishops and Priests Basilius was in the right It is not lawfull for Laymen to treat of Ecclesiasticall causes in generall Councels as Bâ—shops doe that is to say to have decisive Voices or to meddle above their capacities much lesse ought they frowardly to oppose general Councels or to vie reason for reason with them The Bishops form of subscription was this Ego B. definiens subscripsâ— I B. have subscribed to this as my definition The Laymans form was this Ego L. consentiens subscripsâ— I L. have subscribed to this as giving my consent to it There is a great difference between defining and consenting But as Kings are never minors because they are presumed to hâ—ve a wise Councel so they are never to be considered as ignorant Lay-men who have a learned Councel of Ecclesiasticall persons to direct them All this while he troubles himself to no purpose about the deliberative part but medleth not at all with the authoritative part which only is in question between us Sovereign Princes by their Royall Authority have power to incorporate the Decrees of Councels into the Lawes of the Land and to subject the violaters of them to civill punishments His sixth witnesse is Charles the great Charles the great in Crantzius professeth that he gave the Church of Breme to Saint Wilihaâ—e by command of the high Bishop and universall Pope Adrian c. by which words we see by whose Authority he meddled in Spirituall matters It is a great degree of confidence to dare to cite Charles the great to prove that it is not lawfull for Sovereign Princes to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires To cite him who convocated Councels yeerly by his own Authority and reformed the Church Who sate himself in Synods not only as a hearer but as a Judg that is with the advise of his Ecclesiasticall Councel Auditor Arbiter adfui and made Ecclesiasticall Decrees in his own name discernimus Deo donante decrevimus Who made himself Judg of the Popes themselves who disposed by his own Authority not only of the Bishoprick of Breme which was then a place but newly conquered by himself and newly converted but of all the Bishopricks throughout the Empire not excepting the Bishoprick of Rome it self To whom this very Pope Adrian whom he citeth with the Clergy and People of Rome did solemnly resigne release and acquit for ever all their claim right and interest in the election of succeeding Popes The case cited was this Saint Willehade was an Englishman sent by the English King and Bishops to convert those Countries to the Christian Faith Charles the great who had newly conquered those parts and desired much their conversion finding the great merits of this Wilehade remunerare se digno constiâ—uit Episcopatu He resolved to bestow a good Bishoprick upon him And therefore he called him forth and commanded him to be consecrated Bishop of Breme The case is as cleer in the history as the noon day Charles the great founded and erected Bishopricks at his pleasure Episcopalem constituimus Cathedram and gave them such priviledges as he thought fit extat privilegium eidem Ecclesiae a memorato Rege Collatum He endowed the Churches and commanded the inhabitants to pay their Tythes and other duties to them hoc nostro Majestaâ—is
the Councel That there was no fear so long as none but Italians were in Trent and ingageth himself to secure it The grievances which they complained of were done in Germany the redress which they sough was in Germany Germany not Italy had been the proper place for the Councel R. C. proceedeth the Protestants were the first accusers of the Pope It may be so but not in a legall or judiciary way He confesseth That in doubtfull cases there ought to be four distinct persons the accuser the witness the person accused and the Iudge but not in notorious rebellion in which case there needs neither witness nor accuser And doth not this merit the reputation of a doubtfull case wherein so great a part of the occidental Church are ingaged who are ready to prove evidently that he who is their accuser and usurps the office of their Judge is the notorious Rebell himself I confess that in some cases the notority of the fact may supply the defect of witnesses but that must evermore be in cases formerly defined by the Law to be Rebellion or Heresie or the like The Popes Rebellion hath been already condeâ—â—ed in the Councel of Constance and his heretical maintaining of it in the Councel of Basile But the Protestants renouncing of his usurped authority hath never yet been lawfully defined to be either the one or the other Yet he saith The Protestants were condemned not only by the Councel of Trent but by the Patriarch of Constantinople to whom they appealed One that readeth this and knoweth not otherwise would beleeve that the Protestants in general had appealed from the Councel of Trent and were juridically condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople Who gave the Appellants procuration to appeal in the name of the Protestants in general Who gave the Patriarch of Constantinople power to receive the Appeal Where is the condemnation Is the English Church included therein No such thing The case was this One or two forrein particular Protestants made a representation to the Patriarch of Constantinople of some controversies then on foot between the Church of Rome and them And he delivered his opinion it should seem as R. C. conceiveth more to the advantage of the Romanists thâ—n of the Protestants This he calleth an Appeal and a condemnation I crave pardon of the Reader if I doe not in present give him a punctual and particular account of the Patriarchs answer It is thirty years since I see it Neither doe I know how to procure it Thus farre I will charge my memorie that the questions were ill chosen and worse stated and the Patriarchs answer much more to the prejudice of the Church of Rome then of the Church of England The right stating of the question is all in all When the Church of England have any occasion to make their addresses that way they will make them more apposite more to the purpose But since he hath appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Constantinople let him goe I mean Cyrillus since the time of Hieremy whom that learned Gentleman Sir Thomas Roe then Ambassador for our late King at Constantinople had better informed of the true state and belief of the English Church He published a Treatise of his own much about the year 1630 which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a confession of the Christian Faith so conformable to the grounds of the Church of England that it might seem rather to have been written by the Primate of Canterbury then by the Patriarch of Constantinople I will cull out a few flowers and make a posie for him to let him see whether the Patriarchs of Constantinople doe condemn the Church of England or the Church of Rome In the second Chapter he declareth That the authority of the Scripture is above the authority of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for it is not equall or alike to be taught of the holy Ghost and to be taught of man In his tenth Chap. he declareth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall men can by no means be the head of the Church and that our Lord Iesus Christ alone is the head of it In the thirteenth Chapter he asserteth justification by Faith alone just according to the Doctrine of the Church of England In the fifteenth Chapter he acknowledgeth but two Sacraments In the seventeenth Chapter he professeth a true reall presence of Christ the Lord in the Eucharist just as we doe and rejecteth the nâ—w devise of transubstantiation In the eighteenth Chapter he disclaimeth purgatorie c. All this he declarâ—th to be the Faith which Christ taught the Apostles preached and the orthodox Church ever held and undertaketh to make it good to the World And after in his answer to some questions which were proposed to him he excludeth the Apocryphall Books out of the Canon of holy Scripture and condemneth the worship of Images In a word he is wholy ours And to declare to the World that he was so he resolved to dedicate his confession of the Faith of the Greek Church to the King of England When this Treatise was first published it is no marvel if the Court of Rome and the congregation for propagating of the Roman Faith in Greece did storm at it and use their uttermost indevor to ruine him But he justified it before the Ambassadors of Roman Catholick Princes then remaining at Constantinople and came off fairly in despite of all those who did calumniate him and cast false aspersions upon him Besides his own autograph and the testimonies of the Ambassadors then present if there had been nothing else to justifie this truth the instructions given by Cardinal Bandini to Cannachi Rossi in the name of the Pope alone had been sufficient proof and the plots which they contrived against him either to have him taken away by death or deposition For at the same time they decryed the Treatise here as supposititious and accused him there as criminous for being the Author of it But God delivered him out of their hands He pleadeth moreover That the Bishops assembled in Trent were not the Popes Ministers Yet he knoweth right well that they had all taken an Oath of obedience to the Pope for maintenance of the Papacy Were these equall Judges I confess there were many noble souls amongst them who did limit their Oath according to the Canons of the Church But they could doe nothing being over-voted by the Popes Clients and Pensioners He asketh who were the accusers witnesses and Iudges of the Pope in the Parliament 1534 but King Henry himself and his Ministers I answer that they were not King Henries Ministers but the Trustees of the Kingdome they were not sworn to maintain King Henrie's usurpations they acted not by a judiciary but by a legislative power neither did they make any new Law but only declare the ancient Law of the Land Otherwise they medled not with the person of
A Replication TO THE BISHOP of CHALCEDON HIS Survey of the Vindication OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND FROM Criminous Schism Clearing the English Laws from the aspertion of Cruelty With an Appendix in answer to the exceptions of S. W. By the right Reverend JOHN BRAMHALL D. D. and Lord Bishop of Derry LONDON Printed by K. H. for Iohn Crook at the signe of the Ship in St. Pauls Church-yard 1656. To the Christian Reader CHristian Reader of what Communion soever thou beest so thou beest within the Communion of the oecumenicall Church either in act or in desire I offer this second Treatise of Schism to thy serious view and unpartiall Iudgment The former was a Vindication of the Church of England this later is a Vindication of my self or rather both are Vindications of both In vindicating the Church then I did vindicate my self And in vindicating my self now I doe vindicate the Church What I have performed I doe not say I dare not judg the most moderate men are scarcely competent judges of their own works No man can justly blame me for honouring my spiritual Mother the Church of England in whose wombe I was conceived at whose brests I was nourished and in whose bosome I hope to die Bees by the instict of nature doe love their hives and Birds their nests But God is my witness that according to my uttermost talent and poor understanding I have endeavored to set down the naked truth impartially without either favor or prejudice the two capital enemies of right judgment The one of which like a fals mirror doth represent things fairer and straighter then they are the other like the tongue infected with choler makes the sweetest meats to taste bitter My desire hath been to have truth for my chiefest friend and no enemy but error If I have had any byasse it hath been desire of peace which our common Saviour left as a Legacy to his Church that I might live to see the re-union of Christendome for which I shall alwaies bow the knees of my heart to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. It is not impossible but that this desire of unity may have produced some unwilling error of love but certainly I am most free from the willfull love of error In questions of an inferior natu re Christ regards a charitaable intention much more then a right opinion Howsoever it be I submit my self and my poor indeavors first to the judgment of the Catholick oecumenicall essentiall Church which if some of late daies have indeavored to hisse out of the Schools as a fancy I cannot help it From the beginning it was not so And if I should mistake the right Catholick Church out of humane frailty or ignorace which for my part I have no reason in the World to suspect yet it is not impossible when the Romanists themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what â—his catholick Church or what their infallible Iudg is I doe implicitly and in the preparation of my minde submit my self to the true catholick Church the Spouse of Christ the Mother of the Saints the Pillar of Truth And seeing my adherence is firmer to the infallible rule of Faith that is the holy Scriptures interpreted by the catholick Church then to mine own private judgment or opinions although I should unwittingly fall into an error yet this cordiall submission is an implicite retractation thereof and I am confident will be so accepted by t he Father of merâ—â—â—s both from me 〈…〉 and sincerely 〈…〉 â—th Likew◠〈…〉 reprâ—sentative 〈…〉 generall Councell or so generall as can be procured and untill then to the Church of England wherein I was baptized or to a nationall English Synod To the determination of all which and each of them respectively according to the distinct degrees of their authority I yeeld a conformity and compliance or at the least and to the lowest of them an acquiescence Finally I crave this favor from the courteous Reader that because the Surveier hath overseen almost all the principall proofs of the cause in question which I conceive not to be so clearly and candidly done he will take the pains to peruse the Vindication it self And then in the name of God let him follow the dictate of right reason For as that scale must needs settle down whereinto most weight is put so the minds cannot chuse but yeeld to the weight of perspicuous demonstration An Answer to R. C. the Bishop of Chalcedons preface I Examine not the impediments of R. C. his undertaking this survey Only I cannot but observe his complaint of extreme want of necessary Books having all his own notes by him and such store of excellent Libraries in Paris at his command then which no City in the World affords more few so good certainly the main disadvantage in this behalf lies on my side Neither will I meddle with his motives to undertake it I have known him long to have been a Person of great eminence among our English Roman Catholicks and doe esteem his undertaking to be an honour to the Treatise Bos lassus fortiùs pedem figit said a great Father The weary Oxe treadeth deeper Yet there is one thing which I cannot reconcile namely a fear least if the answer were longer deferred the poison of the said Treatise might spread further and become more incurable Yet with the same breath he tels us that I bring nothing new worth answering And in his answer to the first Chapter that no other English Minister for ought he knows hath hitherto dared to defend the Church of England from Schisme in any especiall Treatise Yes diverse he may be pleased to inform himself better at his leisure What is the Treatise so dangerous and infectious Is the way so unbeaten And yet nothing in it but what is triviall Nothing new that deserves an answer I hope to let him see the contrary He who disparageth the work which he intends to confute woundeth his own credit through his adversaries sides But it seemeth that by surveying over hastily he did quite oversee all our principall evidence and the chiefest firmaments of our cause I am sure he hath quite omitted them I shall make bold now then to put him in mind of it Hence he proceedeth to five observable points which he esteemeth so highly that he beleeveth they alone may serve for a full refutation of my Book Then he must have very favourable Judges His first point to be noted is this that Schisme is a substantiall division or a division in some substantiall part of the Church And that the substantiall parts of the Church are these three Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and Lawfull Ministery I confesse I am not acquainted with this language to make Profession of Faith Communion in Sacraments and lawfull Ministery which are no substances to be substantiall parts of any thing either Physicall or Metaphysicall He defineth the Church to be a Society can these be
upon uncertain suspicions No. In doubtfull cases it is alwaies presumed pro Rege lege for the King and for the Law Neither is it lawfull as a Father said some Virgins who cast themselves desperately into a River for fear of being defloured to commit a certain crime for fear of an uncertain Yea to rise yet one step higher though it were lawfull yet it were not prudence but folly for a man to thrust himself into more more apparent more real danger for fear of one lesser lesse apparent and remoter danger Or for fear of Charybdis to run headlong into Scylla He who forsakes the English Church for fear of Schism to joyn in a stricter communion with Rome plungeth himself in greater and more reall dangers both of Schism and Idolatry and Heresy A man may live in a schismaticall Church and yet be no Schismatick if he erre invincibly and be ready in the preparation of his mind to receive the truth whensoever God shall reveal it to him nor want R. C. himself being Judge either Faith or Church or Salvation And to his reason whereby he thinks to free the Church of Rome from Schism because they never went out of any Christian Society I answer two waies first It is more schismaticall to cast true Churches of Christ out of the communion of the Catholick Church either without the Keies or Clave errant with an erring Key then meerly and simply to goe out of a particular Church This the Romanists have done although they had not done the other But they have done the other also And therefore I add my second answer by naming that Christian Society out of which the present Church of Rome departed even the ancient primitive Roman Church not locally but morally which is worse by introducing corruptions in Faith Liturgy and use of the Sacraments whereby they did both divide themselves schismatically from the externall communion of the true primitive uncorrupted Church of Christ and became the cause of all following separation So both waies they are guilty of Schism and a much greater Schism then they object to us All that followes in his preface or the most part of it is but a reiteration of the same things without adding one more grain of reason to enforce it If I did consider that to divide any thing in any of its substantiall parts is not to reform but to destroy the essence thereof c. If I did consider that there are three substantiall parts of a true Church in substance c. If I did consider that any division of a true Church in any substantiall part thereof is impious because it is a destruction of Christs mysticall body c. If I did consider all these things c. I should clearly see that the English Protestant Church in dividing her self from the substance of the Roman Church in all her formall substantiall parts committed damnable sinne and that I in defending her therein commit damnable sinne I have seriously and impartially weighed and considered all that he saith I have given him a full account of it that we have neither separated our selves from the mysticall body of Christ nor from any essentiall or integrall part or member thereof I have shewed him the originall of his mistake in not distinguishing between sacred institutions and subsequent abuses between the genuine parts of the body and wenns or excrescences And in conclusion waving all our other advantages I doe not for the present finde on our parts the least shadow of criminous Schism He praies God to open my eies that I may see this truth I thank him for his charity in wishing no worse to me then to himself But errours goe commonly masked under the cloak of truth Fallit enim vitium specie virtutis umbra I pray God open both our eies and teach us to deny our selves that we may see his truth and preferre it before the study of advancing our own party For here the best of us known but in part and see as through a glasse darkly that we may not have the faith of Christ in respect of persons That which followes is new indeed To communicate with Schismaticks is to be guilty of Schism But the English Church joynes in communion of Sacraments and publick Praiers with Schismaticks namely Puritans and Independants This is inculcated over and over again in his book But because this is the first time that I meet with it and because I had rather be before hand with him then behind hand I will give it a full answer here And if I meet with any new weight added to it in any other place I shall endeavour to cleer that there without wearying the reader with tautologies and superfluous repetitions And first I deny his proposition To communicate with hereticks or Schismaticks in the same publick Assemblies and to be present with them at the same divine offices is not alwaies Heresy or Schism unlesse one communicate with them in their hereticall or schismaticall errours In the primitive Church at Antiâ—ch when Leontius was Bishop the Orthodox Christians and the Arrians repaired to the same Assemblies but they used different formes of doxologies the orthodox Christians saying Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the holy Ghost And the Arrians saying Glory be to the Father by the Son in the Spirit At which time it was observed that no man could discerne what form the Bishop used because he would not alienate either party So they communicated with Arrians but not in Arrianism with hereticks but not in Heresy Take another instance the Catholicks and Novatians did communicate and meet together in the same Assemblies Illo autem tempore parum aberat quin Novatiani Catholici penitus conspirassent Nam eadeâ— de Deo sentientes communiter ab Arrianis agitati in similibus calamitatibus constituti se muâ—ua complecti benevolentia in unum convenire pariter orare caeperunt And further decreverunt deinceps inter se communicare At that time it wanted little that the Novatians and Catholicks did not altogether conspire in one for having both the same Faith concerning God suffering the same persecution from the Arrians and being both involved in the same calamities they began to love one another to assemble together and to pray together And they decreed from that time forward to communicate one with another The primitive Catholicks thought it no Schism to communicate with Novatians that is with Schismaticks so long as they did not communicate with them in their Novatianism that is in their Schism Have the English Protestants matriculated themselves into their congregational Assemblies Have they justified the unwarrantable intrusion of themselves into sacred Functions without a lawfull calling from Christ or his Church Or their dispensing the greatest mysteries of religion with unwashen or it may be with bloody hands As for communicating with them in a schismaticall Liturgy it is impossible they have
assenting to the erecting of it And I aske how it was not legally established which was established by soveraign authority according to the direction of the Convocation with the confirmation of the Parliament What other legall establishment can there be in England By the Lawes of England a Bishop had but his single vote either in Parliament or Convocation Some Bishops were imprisoned indeed but neither the most nor the best of the English Bishops whether for not assenting or for other reasons will require further proof than his bare assertion This is certain that every one of them had freely renounced the Pope and Papacy in the reign of Henry the eighth He saith I should have added that Church which was suppressed by the last Parliament under King Charles Why should I add a notorious untruth as contrary to my conscience as to my affections I might have said oppressed I could not say suppressed The externall splendor was abated when the Baronies of the Bishops and their votes in Parliament were taken away but the Order was not extinguished So far from it that King Charles himself suffered as a Martyr for the English Church If his meaning be that it was suppressed by an ordinance of one or both Houses without authority royall he cannot be so great a stranger in England as not to know that it is without the sphere of their activity Yet he is pleased to stile it a dead Church and me the Advocate of a dead Church even as the Trees are dead in Winter when they want their leaves or as the Sun is set when it is behinde a Cloud or as the Gold is destroyed when it is melting in the Furnace When I see a seed cast into the ground I doe not aske where is the greeness of the leaves where is the beauty of the flowers where is the sweetnes of the fruit but I expect all these in their due season Stay a while and behold the Catastrophe The rain is fallen the wind hath blown and the floods have beaton upon their Church but it is not fallen for it is founded upon a Rock The light is under a Bushell but it is not extinguished And if God in justice should think fit to remove our Candlestick yet the Church of England is not dead whilest the Catholick Church survives Lastly he denies that the English Church is under persecution And though some of the Church doe suffer yet it is not for Religion but matters of State What can a man expect in knotty questions from them who are so much transported with prejudice as to deny those things which are obvious to every eie If it be but some that have suffered it is such a some as their Church could never shew wherein he that desires to be more particularly informed may read the Martyrology of London or the List of the Universities and from that paw guess at the proportion of the Lion But perhaps all this was for matters of State No our Churches were not demolished upon pretence of matters of State nor our Ecclesiasticall Revenues exposed to sale for matters of State The refusall of a schismaticall Covenant is no matter of State How many of the orthodox Clergy without pretence of any other delinquency have been beggered how many necessitated to turn Mechanicks or day-Laborers how many starved how many have had their hearts broken how many have been imprisoned how many banished from their native Soil and driven as Vagabonds into the merciless World No man is so blinde as he that will not see His tenth Section is a summary or repetition of what he hath already said wherein I finde nothing of weight that is new but onely one authority out of St. Austin That Catholicks are every where and Hereticks every where but Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks different every where If by Catholicks he understand Roman Catholicks they are not every where not in Russia nor in Aethiopia and excepting some hand-fulls for the most part upon toleration not in any of the Eastern Churches The words of Saint Austin are these Vbicunque sunt isti illic Catholica sicut in Africa ubi vos non autem ubicunque Catholica est aut vos istis aut Heresis quaelibet earum Wheresoever they are there is the Catholick Church as in Africa where you are but wheresoever the Catholick Church is you are not nor any of those Heresies St. Austins scope is to shew that the Catholick Church is more diffused or rather universall than any Sect or all Sects put together If you please let this be the Touchstone between you and us But you will say that you are united every where and we are different every where Nothing less You are united in one pretended head which some of you acknowledge more some less We are united in the same Creed the same Sacraments and for the most part the same discipline Besides of whom doth St. Austin speak in that place of the Novatians Arrians Patripassians Valentinians Patricians Apellites Marcionites Ophites all which condemned all others but themselves and thereby did separate themselves Schismatically from the Catholick Church as it is to be feared that you doe Our case is quite contrary we reform our selves but condemn no others CHAP. 3. Whether Protestants were Authors of the separation from Rome WE are now come from stating the Question to proofs where we shall soon see how R. C. will acquit himself of the province which he hath undertaken To shew that Protestants were not the Authors of the Separation from Rome but Roman Catholicks I produced first the solemn unanimous resolution of our Universities in the point that the Bishop of Rome had no greater Jurisdiction within England conferred upon him by God in the Scripture than any other forrein Bishop Secondly the decrees of two of our nationall Synods Thirdly six or seven Statutes or Acts of Parliament Fourthly the attestation of the prime Roman Catholick Bishops and Clergy in their printed Books in their Epistles in their Sermons in their Speeches in their Institution Fiftly the unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome of England testified by Bishop Gardiner and of the Kingdome of Ireland proved out of the Councell Book Lastly the Popes own Book wherein he interdicted and excommunicated the whole Church of England before the reformation made by Protestants So as apparently we were chased away from them Heare the judgement of a Stranger This year the Pope brake the wise patience or rather dissimulation which for four years together he had used towards England And sent against the King a terrible thundring Bull such as never was used by his Predecessors nor imitated by his Successors It will cost him some tugging to break such a six-fold cord as this is What doth he answer to all this Not one word And so I take my first ground pro confesse That Protestants were not Authors of the separation of the English
might even as well say that two or three common Soldiers of the Carthaginian Army and perhaps not one of them at the fight were the Authors of the Roman overthrow at Cannae It was the Universities that approved the separation unanimously It was the Synods that directed the separation It was the King that established the separation It was the Parliament that confirmed the separation How could two or three Privados without Negromancy have such an efficatious influence upon the Universities and Synods and Parliaments and the King himself Yet they might have an hand in it no nor so much as a little finger As much as the Flie that sate upon the Cart-wheel had in raising of the dust The two Houses of Parliament alone did consist of above 600. of the most able and eminent persons in the Kingdome what had these three been able to doe among them supposing they had been then Protestants and of the House Even as much as three drops of hony in a great vessell of vinegar or three drops of vinegar in a great vessell of hony But let us see what it is which he objects against Cranmer and the rest That Cranmer whom I will not deny to have been a friend and favourer of Protestants advised that the King should seek no more to the Court of Rome And that bidding adieu to the Court of Rome he should consult with the most learned in the Universities of Europe at home and abroad There was no hurt in all this There could be no suspicion that the most learned in all the Universities of Europe should be enemies to the just rights of the Roman Court But upon this saith he it was by Commission disputed by the Divines in both Universities And so he concludes triumphantly Behold Cranmer the first author of secession from the Pope I answer That this secession was no secession of the Church of England nor this disputation any disputation concerning the jurisdiction of the Roman Court over the English Church but only concerning a particular processe there depending between King Henâ—y and Queen Katherine about the validity or invalidity of their marriage and the Popes dispensation which Cranmer maintained to be determinable by Divine law not by Canon law The truth is this Doctor Stephens and Doctor Fox two great Ministers of King Henry and Doctor Cranmer chanced to meet without any designe at Waltham where discourse being offered concerning this processe Cranmer freely declared his judgement that the marriage of a Brother with his Brothers Wife was unlawfull by the Law of God and that the Pope could not dispense with it And that it was more expedient and more proper to seek to have this cause determined by the best Divines and Universities of Europe then by the dilatory proceeding of the Roman Court This was related to the King The King sent for Cranmer He offered freely to justifie it before the Pope And to demonstrate both that this was no separation from Rome and that Cranmer himself was no Protestant at that time it is acknowledged by all our Historiographers that after this Cranmer with others was sent as an Ambassador or Envoy to Rome and returned home in the Popes good Grace not without a mark of his favour being made his penitentiary Likewise saith another Cranmer that unworthy Archbishop of Canterbury was his the Earl of Hartfords right hand and chief assistant in the work although but a few moneths before he was of King Harries Religion yea a great Patron and Prosecutor of the six Articles That is as much as to say no friend no favourer of Protestants So this victorious argument failes on both sides Some other places he citeth concerning Cranmer That he freed the Kings conscience from the yoke of Papall dominion that is to say in that processe That by his counsell destruction was provided divinely to the Court of Rome that is occasionally and by the just disposition of Almighty God That the King was brought by Cranmers singular virtue to defend the cause of the Gospell that is in that particular case that the Pope cannot dispense contrary to the Law of God And lastly That the Papall power being discovered by King Henries authority and Cranmers did easily fall down I much doubt if I had the Book whether I should finde these testimonies such as they are cited Howsoever it may be true distinguendo tempora and referendo singula singulis They could not be spoken of the first separation when Cranmer had no more authority then a private Doctor but of the following times King Henry suppressed the Papall tyranny in England by his Legislative Power and Cranmer by his discovery of their usurpations and care to see the Lawes executed Against Crumwell he produceth but one testimony That it was generally conceived and truly as never thought That the politick waies for taking away the Popes authority in England and the suppression of Religious Houses were principally devised by Crumwell First this is but an argument from vulgar opinion Secondly when Archbishop Warham and the Synod did first give to King Henry the Supremacy and the Title of Head of the English Church Crumwell was no Protestant he had lately been Cardinall Wolsies Soliciter and was then Master of the Jewel House of no such power to doe any great good or hurt to the Protestants And at his death he professed that he was no Sacramentary and that he died in the Catholick Faith Lord Cherbury in H. 8. anno 1540. Holl. an 32. H. 8. fol. 242. But for the suppression of Religious Houses it is not improbable He might well have learned that way under Cardinall Wolsy when he procured the suppression of fourty Monasteries of good note for the founding of his two Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich In which businesse our historians say the Pope licked his own Fingers to the value of twelve Barrels full of Gold and Silver Lastly for Doctor Barnes poor man he was neither Courtier nor Councelor nor Convocation man nor Parliament man All the grace which ever he received from King Henry was an honourable death for his Religion He said That he and such other wretches as he had made the King a whole King by their Sermons If they did so it was well done The meaning of a whole King is an Head of the Church saith R. C. It may be so but the consequence is naught Perhaps he meant a Soveraign independant King not feudatory to the Pope which he that is is but half a King Not only of old but in later times the Popes did challenge a power Paramount over the Kings of England within their own dominions as appeareth by the Popes Bull sent to Iames the fifth King of Scotland wherein he declareth that he had deprived King Henry of his Kingdome as an Heretick a Schismatick an Adulterer a Murtherer a Sacrilegious person and lastly a Rebell and convict of laesae Majestatis for that he had risen
against him the Pope who was his Lord. But now supposing all R. C. his suggestions had been true That Cranmer and Crumwell had been Protestants at that time and had been in as much grace and had had the like opportunity of addresse to the King as they had afterwards that Cranmer had perswaded the King as a Divine and Crumwell as a Polititian to separate from the Court of Rome And that Barnes had preached against the Popes Supremacy Yet this is farre from the authoritative separation of the whole Church and Kingdome from the Court of Rome Morall perswasions may incline but cannot necessitate the will Therefore not confiding to these broken Reeds at length he admits that Roman Catholicks were the Authors of the saparation Be it so that Roman Catholicks were the authors of the division that is worse for Protestants because then Protestants continue a wicked Schism wicked begun against conscience against known truth and consequently a sin against the holy Ghost And to make his assertion good he produceth the authority of Optatus It appeareth evidently that you are the heirs of Schismaticks He who reads this would believe that Optatus spake positively of Protestants when he speaks only of Donatists cum haec itâ— gesta esse manifestissime constet vos haeredes esse traditorum Schismaticorum evidenter appareat Seeing it is most evident that these things did fall out thus that is that Majorinus whose Chair Parmenianus did now possesse did divide himself from the communion of Caecilianus and set up a Chair against a Chair in the same Church or a new Chair quae ante ipsum Majorinum originem non habebat and seeing Majorianus was a traditor and a Schismatick it appears evidently that Parmenian was the heire of a Schismatick Now what doth this concern us The Donatists set up a new Chair against an old Chair in the same Church we have done no such thing God make us able to keep up tha old Secondly the Donatists separated themselves from all other Churches we separate our selves from no Churches neither from the Chair of Caecilian nor of Peter nor of Cyprian But if we would know not only who are the heirs of the Donatists but who are their heirs in their Schism we may finde them easily It is the Roman Catholicks themselves first in their uncharitablenesse in breaking the bond of brotherly unity The Catholicks owned the Donatists for their brethren but the Donatists refused to own the Catholicks for their brethren quamvie illi non negent omnibus not um sit c. Although they deny it not and it is known to all men that they hate us and accurse us and will not be called our brethren yet c. without doubt they are our brethren And a little after And because they will not have the Episcopall College common with us let them not be our fellow Collegians if they will not yet as I said before they are our brethren This is just the case between them and us we offer them the right hand of brotherhood as the Catholicks did to the Donatists but they refuse it as the Donatists did to the Catholicks Secondly the Donatists separated the whole Catholick Church from their communion and substituted themselves being but a small part of the Christian World in the place of the Catholick Church Just as the Romanists doe at this day Optatus speaks home unto them both the old and new Donatists Se pro voluntate vestra inangustum coarctatis Ecclesiam c. If ye for your pleasure doe thrust the Church into a streit if ye substract all Nations where is that which the Son of God hath merited where is that which the Father hath given him I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession Why doe you infringe this promise Or imprison this universall Kingdome c. Suffer the Son to possesse his Fathers gift Suffer the Father to fulfill his promise Why doe you set bounds and limits And still ye endeavour to perswade men that the Church is only with you Let the Reader judge who are the right heirs of the Donatists The rest of his discourse is a groundlesse asking of the question First those Roman Catholicks did make no separation from the Roman Church but from the Roman Court. Secondly they separated from the Roman Court only in its innovations without criminous Schism Thirdly we cannot we dare not be so uncharitable as to judge that the whole Kingdome and all the Pastors of the Church did sinne against their conscience but we believe firmly that it was the clear light and evidence of truth that made them so unanimous in their separation Fourthly though they had sinned against the known truth not being done of malice it was not the sinne against the holy Ghost St. Peter did not sinne against the holy Ghost when he denied Christ. Fiftly though they had sinned against conscience in separating yet the fault being not in the thing done but in the conscience of the doer we being better informed may with a good conscience hold what they with a bad conscience did take away Lastly though they had sinned not only in separating against conscience but also in the very act of separation Yet we who found the separation made to our hands who never did any act either to oblige us to Rome or to disoblige us from Rome holding what we received from our Ancestors and endeavoring to finde out the truth and ready to receive it whensoever God shall reveal it unto us are not censurable as Schismaticks as I proved out of Saint Austine though R. C. be pleased to take no notice of it Here he makes a short double and will needs have Henry the eight to have been a substantiall Protestant If he was a Protestant doubtlesse he was a substantiall Protestant But why a Protestant Doctor Barnes and many more who were burned by him for Protestants would hardly have believed it But he saith Henry the eight was an Antipapist and that is sufficient to make a Protestant If that be sufficient to make a Protestant it is well otherwise one of his friends tels us We had a King who by his Lawes abolished the authority of the Pope although in all other things he would follow the Faith of his Ancestors Lately he tould us that the essence and life and soul and definition of a Protestant was to hold justification by Faith alone then Henry the eight was no Protestant for he did not hold justification by Faith alone Now he makes the essence of a Protestant to be impugning the Popes Supremacy I had not thought essences or definitions had been so mutable but for my part I am glad of the change If all Antipapists be Protestants then all the Grecian Armenian Abyssen Russian Christians are Protestants then we shall not want Protestants to bear us company in
the Church of Rome it self so long as there are any followers of the Councells of Constance and Basill But some Protestants have confessed That he was a Member of the Catholick Church Why not There are many Members of the Catholick Church besides Protestants Others call him a true Defender of the true Faith a Denfender of the Gospell an Embracer of the pure Gospell of Christ rejecting devises of men contrary thereunto All this may be true and yet they neither say nor intend this absolutely but comparatively not universally but respictvely to some particular controverted points and principally this of the Supremacy I charged some for making the cruelty of the Protestants and the rigour of their Laws the motives of their falling away from the English Church And shewed that more Protestants suffered not only death but extreme torments in death for Religion in the short reign of Queen Mary then Roman Catholicks in all the much longer reigns of all the Protestant Princes since the Reformation And that the Kingdome of France and the Common-wealth of Venice had made the like Lawes to ours Whatsoever I say in our defense he takes no notice of but declaimes against the injustice of our Laws and Judges not without a specious shew of reason Wherefore because it intrencheth upon the honour of our Church and Nation I will take the libertie to search this sore to the bottome I confesse that no man or Society of men can be justly punished notwithstanding the brutish opinions of some persons because they are noxious unless they be noxious in the eye of the Law No not by a legislative authority Where a man cannot give sentence innocently he cannot vote innocently The reason is plain Where there is no Law there is no transgression and where there is no transgression there is no guilt nor just punishment Secondly I confesse that a Law made like a Casting-net to throw over mens lives is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most lawless Law In the twelve Tables which Livy calls the fountains of publick and private right which alone said Tully do excell all the Libraries of all the Philosophers in the World it is thus enacted according to the excellent concise simplicity of their stile Privilegia ne inroganto Let no private Laws be made to any mans hurt or prejudice Likewise it was the Law of Solon That no Law should be made of particular men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless it were imposed upon all the Athenians indifferently said Demosthenes For the same reason when the Thebans had a minde to banish Heraclitus they durst not name him but pointed him out in generall If there was any man in the Citie that never laught and hated all Mankinde let him depart before Sun-set Thinking vainly to hide the nakedness of their Law with a few figg-leaves of generall expressions So universally was this received throughout the World that Laws should not be made for the ruine of particular Subjects Thirdly We must Take notice that many things are lawfull in publick Justice that is in Warre or Legislation or the like which are not lawfull in particular Justice between Subject and Subject As it is lawfull to pull down any Citizens house to save the whole Citie from fire It is lawfull to make use of any mans land to make a bank to save the whole Country from inundation in which cases nevertheless the publick is obliged to repaire the Subjects damage Suppose the greater part of a Citie should force the honester part to submit to their pleasure and contribute to their rebellious courses or force them to it the party forced is innocent Yet in the recoverie of the Towne the honestest Citizens are as subject to be slain their houses to be burned their goods to be plundered as the most disloyall And justly For it being lawfull to reduce the Citie to obedience by warre this justifies all necessarie means of reduction And the honest party who suffer without fault cannot blame the Magistrates for their sufferings nor the Souldiers who doe their commands but their fellow Citizens But when this necessity is over and the Citie is reduced and distinction can be made particular Justice must take place again and then none ought to suffer but Delinquents according to the degree of their Delinquency Fourthly To proceed one step neerer to the case in question The same necessity doth justifie those Lawes which are enacted for the common safety and tranquillity of the whole body politick under whatsoever penalties they aâ—e pleased to impose as banishment confiscation of goods imprisonment or death it self so they be proportioned to the exigence of the dangers greater or lesser though these Lawes prove burthensome to particular Citizens or restrain Subjects from the exercise of those things which oâ—herwise were benefiâ—iall lawfull and laudable to them in particular Suppose a Generall should make an Edict That no Souldier uâ—der pain of death should leave the Câ—mp Yet one goes to visit his Father being sick and suffâ—rs for it This is not for doing his filial duty but for violating of his Generalls Edict In Ireland it was forbidden by Statute under pain of most severe punishment to use the words Crumabo and Butlerabo because they were badgets of Faction and incentives to Sedition The Philistims did not suffer a Smith in Israel least the Hebrews should make themselves Swords and Spears The King of Spain weighing the danger that might arise from the numerous multitudes of Moors within his Dominions sent them all packing away by an Edict The Athenians thought it no injustice to banish their chiefest and most loyall Citizens if they fâ—ared a tyranny or necessity of State did require it All Nations have their Imbargues and prohibited goods and forbid all Commerce and Conversation with those that are in open hostility against them If a ship arrive from any places infected with some contagious disease they keep the pasâ—â—ngers from mixing with their Subjects untill they have given sufficient proof that they are â—ound If they find cause to banish a citizen either for a prefixed terme or for ever under pain of death or forfeiture of all their goods if there be a necessity in it to secure the Common-wealth they may doe it And if the persons to banished will return on their own heads upon pretence that they love their Country so well that they canâ—ot live out of it or if any of them being a Clergy man should pretend that he returns out of conscience to doe the offices of his Function among his Countrymen it is not the Law but they who pull the penalty of the Law upon themselves In summe it is cleer that whensoever a Prince or a Republick out of just necessity and for the preservation of the Common-wealth shâ—ll restrain their subjects from anything that threatens the same with imminent dangers upon whatsoever penalty it be so it be proportionable to the danger it is
and necessities of England Is not the Prince At least with his Councel and the representative body of the whole Kiâ—gdome When all these unanimously have declared that there is a necessity and have prescribed the best means that possibly they could devise to prevent the danger shall a forrein Prelate and he not only interessed but the very source of all the danger have power to contradict it and to send his suspected Emissaries more frequently then ever into the Kingdome A Pit is digged true but the Authors of these seditious opinions and practises are they who digged it The Queen did what she could to cover it by her Proclamations and Acts of Parliament to premonish every one of the danger If the Pope and their Superiors would be so cruell to thrust out their Emissaries upon desperate attempts upon their vow of blinde obedience and a promise of Celestiall rewards their blood is upon their heads The Queen said further That for the most part of these silly Priests she did not believe them to be guilty of practising the destruction of their Country but their Superiors were they whom she held to be the instruments of this foul crime for as much as they who were sent committed the full and free disposition of themselves to their Superiors So first R. C. inserts these words into the Queens speech whom she executed she executed none she condemned none Those who were executed in her long reign of above fourty four yeers were not so many This expression would have fitted the short reign of Queen Mary much better Secondly he adds these words were guilty of treason whereas the Queen said no such thing but were guilty of practising the destruction of their Country Can none have an hand in the destruction of their Country but only they who are practisers and plotters and contrivers of it Are none guilty of treason but only they who practised the destruction of their Country There are Instruments in treason as well as Engeniers who are not privy to the intrigues of the conspiracy And yet suffer justly for acting their parts in it Yea without practising or acting the very concealment of treason alone is sufficient by the Law of England and by the Law of Nations to condemn a person for not discovering it Lastly he leaves out these words which are a clear exposition of the whole sentence But their Superiors were they whom she held to be the Instruments of this foul crime for as much as the Emissaries did commit the whole disposure of themselves to their Superiors So she makes the Superiors and some others who weâ—e most busie most subtil and most affected among them to be the contrivers and grand traitors But for the most part of the silly Priests she took them to be but executers of the designes of their Superiors to shâ—ot those Bolts which they had made and to pull the Chesnuts out of the fire with their naked fingers for their Superiors to eat What dealing may others expect from them in citations who are not afraid to cast undeserved durt upon Majesty and prevaricate with their naturall Pâ—incesse under the gratious protection of whose just government they first beheld the light It may serve as one instance of his undue citing testimonies and authorities that whereas I say that dangerous and bloody positions and practises produce severe Lawes And that I wish all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes with the memory of them buried in perpetuall oblivion he inferreth that I seem to confesse that the Lawes made against Catholicks were cruell and unâ—ust He did well to say it seemeth for I neither say the one nor the other though my wishes be the same they were On the contrary I justifie them upon this undeniable ground that no Kingdome is destiture of necessary remedies for its own conservation That which I said I spake indifferently both of their Lawes and ours That Law which was justly enacted may be over-rigorously executed when that necessity which was the only ground of the Law is abated I wish the necessity had not been then so great as to require Lawes written in blood and that a lesser coercion would have sufficed then for a remedy The necessity being abated I wish the rigor may be likewise abated To divide their Lawes and our Lawes or the necessity and the remedy is a fallacy and contrary to what I said when I wished all seditious opinions and over-rigorous Statutes were buried in oblivion He addeth That perhaps mine own persecution hath taught me this lenity At last he confesseth that we suffer persecution which even now he denied The Earl of Strafford then Lieutenant of Ireland did commit much to my hands the politicall regiment of that Church for the space of eight yeers In all that time let him name one Roman Catholick that suffered either death or imprisonment or so much as a pecuniary mulct of twelve pence for his Religion upon any penall Statute If he cannot as I am sure he cannot then it is not my present persecution that taught me that lenity I remember not one Roman Catholick that suffered in all that time but only the titular Archbishop of Cashells who was indeed imprisoned for three or four daies not only upon suspicion but upon information out of Spain that he was a pensioner of the Catholick Kings and being found to be no such dangerous person upon my representation was dismissed Let no man hence imagine that we neglected our duties We did our work by more noble and more successefull means then penall Lawes by building of Churches and mansion Houses for Ministers by introducing a learned Clergy by injoyning them residence by affording them countenance and protection and means of hospitality by planting and ordering Schools for the education of youth and by looking carefully to the education and marriages of the Kings Wards To look to the Ecclesiasticall Regiment was the care of particular Bishops To look to the publick safety of the Kingdome and to free it from sedition masked under the Visard of Religion was the care of the Soveraign Magistrate CHAP. 4. IN the fourth Chapter of the vindication I set forth the dignitie of Apostolicall Churches he great influence they had upon their neighbour Churches yet without any legall jurisâ—iction over them especially the Roman Church in the West I shewed how they endeavored to convert this honorable Presidency into Monarchicall power But that the power which they endeavored to usurpe was in it self uncapable of prescription And if it had been capable yet they had no prescription for it That the British Saxon Danish and Norman Kings successively were the onely Patrons and Protectors of the Church within their Dominions and disposed of all things concerning the externall regiment thereof by the advise of their Prelats called ecclesiasticall Synods made ecclesiasticall Laws punished ecclesiasticall persons prohibited ecclesiasticall Judges received Appeales from ecclesiasticall Courts rejected the ecclesiasticall Laws of
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
Popes but for many of the rest and especially for that which did virtually include them all that is the Legâ—slative power in ecclesiasticall causes wherein the whole body of the Kingdome did claim a neerer interest in respect of that receptive Power which they have ever injoyed to admit or not admit such new Laws whereby they were to be governed it had been folly and madness in the Popes to have attempted upon it One doubt still remains How ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction could be said to be derived from the Crown For they might be apt enough in those dayes to use such improper expressions First with the Romanists themselves I distinguish between habituall and actuall Jurisdiction Habituall Jurisdiction is derived only by ordination Actuall Jurisdiction is a right to exercise that habit arising from the lawfull application of the matter or subject In this later the Lay Patron and much more the Soveraign Prince have their respective Interests and concurrence Diocesses and Parishes were not of divine but humane institution And the same persons were born Subjects before they were made Christians The ordinary gives a School master a license or habituall power to teach but it is the Parents of the Children who apply or substract the matter and furnish him with Scholars or afford him a fit subject whereupon to exercise this habituall power Secondly we must also distinguish between the interior and exterior Court between the Court of Conscience and the Court of the Church For in both these Courts the power of the Keies hath place but not in both after the same manner That power which is exercised in the Court of Conscience for binding and loosing of sinnes is soly from Ordination But that power which is exercised in the Court of the Church is partly from the Soveraign Magistrate especially in England where Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction is enlarged and fortified with a coercive power and the bounds thereof have been much dilated by the favour and piety of Christian Princes by whom many causes have been made of Ecclesiasticall cognisance which formerly were not from whom the coercive or compulsory power of summoning the Kings Subjects by processes and citations was derived It is not then the power of the Keies or any part or branch thereof in the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction even in the exterior Court of the Church which is derived from the Crown But it is coercive and compulsory and coroboratory power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actuall Ecclesiasticall Jurisdicton in the Court of the Church to prevent the oppressions of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquillity of the Common-wealth which belongs to Sovereign Princes As to his corollary that never any King of England before Henry the eighth did challenge an exemption from all Iurisdiction under Christ it is as gross a mistake as all the rest For neither did Henry the eighth challenge any such exemption in the Court of Conscience Among the six bloody Articles established by himself that of auricular confession was one Nor in the Court of the Church seeing the direct contrary is expressly provided for in the Statute it self The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being and his Successors shall have power and authority from time to time by their discretions to give grant and dispose by an instrument under the Seal of the said Archbishop unto your Majesty and to your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm as well all manner of such Licences Dispensations Compositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies Instruments and all other Writings for causes not being contrary or repugnant to holy Scriptures and Lawes of God as heretofore hatâ— been used and accustomed to be had and obtained by your Highnes or any of your most noble Progenitors or any of yours or their Subjects at the See of Rome So vain a suggestion it is That King Henry the eighth did free himself not only from Papall Authority but also and as well from Episcopall Archiepiscopall and all Spirituall Authority either abroad or in England And his Argument which he presseth so seriously to prove it is as vain That the Head of a Company is under none of that Company The Pope himself is under his Confessor who hath power to binde him or loose him in the Court of Conscience The Master of a Family is under his own Chaplain for the regiment of his Soul and under his Physitian for the government of his Body What should hinder it that a Politicall Head may not be under an Ecclesiasticall Pastor The Kings of England are not only under the forrein Jurisdiction of a generall Councell but also under their Ecclesiasticall Pastors though their own Subjects Only they are exempted from all coercive and compulsory power Let us trie whether he be more fortunate in opposing then he hath been in answering The Kings of England saith he permitted Appeales to Rome in ecclesiasticall causes as is evident in St. Wilfrides case who was never reproved nor disliked for appealing twice to Rome not so but the clear contrary appeareth evidently in Saint Wilfrides case Though he was an Archbishop and if an Appeal had been proper in any case it had been in that case This pretended Appeal was not only much disliked but rejected by two Kings successively by the other Archbishop and by the body of the English Clergy as appeareth by the event For Wilfride had no benefit of the Popes sentences but was forced after all his strugling to quit the two Monasteries which were in question whether he would or not and to sit down with his Archbishoprick which he might allwnies have held peaceably if he would This agrees with his supposed Vision in France that at his return into his Country he should receive the greatest part of his possessions that had been taken from him that is praesulatum Ecclesiae suae his Archbishoprick but not his two Monasteries But this is much more plain by the very words of King Alfride cited by me in the Vindication to which R. C. hath offered no answer That he honored the Popes Nuncios for their grave lives and honorable lookes Here is not a word of their credentiall Letters O how would a Nuncio storm at this and take it as an affront The King told them further That he could not give any assent to their legation So that which R. C. calles permitting was in truth downright dissenting and rejecting The reason followes because it was against reason that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of the English should be restored upon the Popes Letter Is not this disliking What could the King say more incivillity then to tell the Popes Nuncios that their Masters demands were unreasonable or what could be more to the purpose and to the utter ruin of R. C. his cause then that the Decrees of the pope were impugned not once but twice not by a few
factious persons but by two or three Kings successively and by Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury a Roman with the flower of the Clergy and the whole Councel of the English He proceedeth they never disliked that Profession of Saint Austins Fellowes that the See Apostolick had sent them to preach in Britanny as she is accustomed to doe in all the World First why should they dislike it they had no reason for it No good Christian can dislike the Husbandmans sowing of Wheat but every good Christian doth dislike the envious mans supersemination or sowing of Tares above the Wheat Or if there had been reason how could they dislike that which in probability they did not know The Letter out of which these words are cited was not written to the English Kings but to the Scotish Bishops by Laurentius Successor to Austin in the See of Canterbury and Melitus of London and Iustus of Rotchester which three were all the Bishâ—ps of the Roman Communion that were at that day in Britain But if perchance he imagine that the Popes sending Preachers into Britain doth either argue an ancient or acquire a subsequent Jurisdiction over Britain he erres doubly first they did nothing without the Kings licence for matter of fact they produced no Papall mandates which had been in vain to a Pagan King At their first arrivall the King commanded them to abide in the Isle of Thanet untill his further pleasure was known They did so Afterwards they were called in by his command he gave them an express licence to preach to his Subjects and after his own conversion majorem praedicandi licentiam a further and larger licence So the conversion of Kent was by the Popes endeavoures and the Kings authority Secondly for matter of right Conversion gives no just title to Jurisdiction How many Countries have been converted to the Christian Faith by the Britans and English over which they never pretended any authority It followeth they never disliked That Saint Gregory should subject all the Priests of Britain under Saint Austin and give him power to erect two Archiepiscopall Sees and twelve Episcopall Sees under each of them Whom could Ethelbert being himself a Novice in Christianity better trust with the disposing of Ecclesiasticall Affaires in his Kingdome then those who had been his Converters But either Saint Gregory in his projects or rather Austin in his informations did mightily over-shoot themselves for the twentieth part of Britain was not in Ethelberts power And all the other Saxon Kings were Pagans at that time We have seen that after the death of Austin and Gregory there were still but one Archbishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion throughout the Britannick Islands The British and Scotish Bishops were many but they renounced all Communion with Rome The British Bishops professed plainly to Austin himself in their Synod that they would not acknowledge him for their Archbishop And the Scotish Bishops did so much abhorre from the Communion of the Bishops of the Roman Communion that as themselves complained Dagamus one of the Scotish Bishops refused to eat with them or to lodge with them in the same Inne And yet he tells us in great earnest that they never disliked it He addeth they never disliked that Saint Melit should bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod to be observed of the Church of England It may be so But whether it was so or not whether they liked them or disliked them whether they received them or rejected them Venerable Bede who is his Author speaketh not a word This is not proving but presuming And why might they not receive them if they found them to be equall and beneficiall non propter authoritatem Legislatoris sed propter aequitatem Legis not for the authority of the Roman Synod but for the equity of their Decrees And what were their Decrees Ordinationes de vita quiete Monachorum Orders for the good conversation and quiet of Monks A matter of no great importance but great or small the Decrees of the Roman Synod were of no force in England unless they were received by the King and Kingdome and if they were received by the King and Kingdome then they were naturalised and made the Lawes of England not of Pope Boniface an usurping and if we may trust Saint Gregory his Predecessors an Antichristian Prelate They willingly admitted a Bishop of Canterbury sent to them and chosen by the Pope Why should they not admit him seeing it was their own desire and request to the Bishop of Rome in respect of the great scarcity of Scholars then in England to send them one as appeareth by the very letter of Vitalianus hominem denique docibilem in omnibus ornatum Antistitem secundum vestrorum scriptorum tenorem minime valuimus nunc reperire We could not finde for the present such a complete Prelate as your letters require and by the reception of the King quâ—d cum Nuncii certò narrassent Regi Egberto adesse Episcopum quem petierant a Romano Antistite when King Egbert had certain notice that the Bishop Theodore was come whom they had desired of the Roman Prelate So he was not obtruded upon them against their wills which was the case of patronage between us and them They acknowledged that Saint Peter was the speciall Porter of Heaven whom they would obey in all things I understand not why he urgeth this except it be to expose the simplicity of those times to dirision The case was this there was a disputation between Coleman and Wilfrid about the observation of Easter Coleman pleaded a tradition from Saint Iohn upon whose bosom Christ leaned delivered to them by Columba their first Converter Wilfrid pleaded a different tradition from St. Peter to whom Christ gave the Keies of the Kingdome of Heaven The King demanded whether that which was said of Saint Peter was true They acknowledged it was And whether any thing of like nature was said to Saint Columb They said no. Thereupon the King concluded Hic est Ostiarius ille cui ego contradicere nolo c. ne forte me adveniente ad fores Regni Coelorum non sit quireseret averso illo qui Claves tenere probatur This is the Porter whom I will not contradict least peradventure when I come to the gates of Heaven there be none to open unto me having made him averse to me who is proved to keepe the Keies No man can be so simple as to beleeve that there are Gates and Keies and Porters in Heaven It were but a poor office for Saint Peter to sit Porter at the Gate whilest the rest were feasting within at the Supper of the Lamb. The Keies were given to Saint Iohn as much as to Saint Peter They publickly engraved in the front of their Churches that Saint Peter was higher in degree then Saint Paul Let them place St. Peter as high as they please
if it had been a solemn interdict in those dayes And this nameless Author calls it but an Epistle Moreover he tells us of honourable presents sent to the Pope but not a word of any absolution which had been more to his purpose if this had been an excommunication It could be nothing but a threatning That unless this abuse were reformed he would hold no communion with them As Victor a much better Pope and in much better times dealt with the Asiaticks over whom he had no Jurisdiction There is a vast difference between formall excommunication and withholding of communion as also between imposing ecclesiasticall punishment and only representing what is incurred by the Canons Where observe with me two things First R. C. his great mistake that here was a command to erect new Bishopricks to which the Canons of the Fathers oblige not and therefore it must proceed from soveraign Authority whereas here was only a filling or supplying of the empty Sees The Authors words are de renovandis Episcopatibus of renewing not erecting Bishopricks and per septem annos destituta Episcopis they had wanted Bishops for seven years Lastly the names of the Sees supplyed which were all ancient episcopall Sees from the first conversion of the West-Saxons doe evince this Winchester Schireborne or Salessbâ—ry Wells Credinton now Exceter and the Bishoprick of Cornwall called anciently St. Germans Secondly observe that whatsoever was done in this business was done by the Kings Authority congregavit Rex Edwardus Synodum King Edward assembled a Synod saith the same Author in the place cited And he calls the sentence of the Synod Decretum Regis the Kings Decree This is more to prove the Kings politicall headship in convocating Synods and confirming Synods then all his conjectures and surmises to the contrary They with all humility admitted Legates of the Pope in the time of Kinulphus and Offâ— and admitted the erection of a new Archbishoprick in England Why should they not admit Legates What are Legates but Messenges and Ambassadors The office of an Ambassador is sacred though from the Great Turk But did they admit them to hold Legantine Courts and swallow up the whole ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of the Kingdome King Offa desired to have a new Archbishoprick established at Lichfeild within his own Dominions and before he had the concurrence of Pope Adrian had excluded the Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Mercian Kingdome by royall Authority On the other side Kenulphus desired to have the Archbishoprick setled as it was formerly at Canterbury This is nothing to enforced Jurisdiction England alwaies admitted the Popes Legates and his Bulls with consent of the King but not otherwise Here again he cites no Authority but his own They professed that it belonged to Bishops to punish Priests and religious men and not to Kings No man doubts of it in their sense but they who leave nothing certain in the World Here is nothing but a heape of confused generalities In some cases the punishment of Clergy men doth not belong to Kings but Archbishops that is cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance tryable by the Cannon Law in the first instance In other cases it belongs not to Archbishops but to Kings to be their Judges as in cases of civill cognisance or upon the last appeale Not that the King is bound to determine them in his own person but by fit Deputies or Delegates Plato makes all Regiment to consist of these three parts knowing commanding and executing The first belongs to the King and his Councell The second to the King in hâ—s person The third to the King by his Deputies So the King governs in the Church but not as a Church-man in the Army but not as a Souldier In the City but not as a Merchant in the Country but not as an Husbandman Our Kings did never use to determine Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes in their own persons but by meete selected Delegates Persons of great maturity of judgement of known dexterity in the Cannon Laws of approved integrity And lastly such at least some of the number as were qualified by their callings to exercise the power of the Keyes and to act by excommunication or absolution according to the exigence of the cause and who more proper to be such Delegates in questions of moment then Archbishops and Bishops This is so evident in our Laws and Histories that it is not only lost labour but shame to oppose it King Edgars words in the place alleged were these Meae solicitudinis est c. It belongs to my care to provide necessaries for the Ministers of Churches c. and to take order for their peace and quiet the examination of whose manners belongs to you whether they live continently and behave themselves honestly to them that are without whether they be solicitous in performing divine offices diligent to instruct the People sober in their conversations modest in their habits discreet in their judgments No man doubts of this But for all this Edgar did not forget his Kingly office and duty See the conclusion of the same oration to the Clergy contempta sunt verba veniendum est ad verbera c. words are dispised it must come to blows Thou hast with thee there the venerable father Edelwald Bishop of Winchester and Oswald the most reverend Bishop of Worcester I commit that busines to you that persons of bad conversation may be cast out of the Churches and persons of good life brought in by your episcopall censure and my royall Authority So Edgar did not forget his politicall headship What King Withred said was spoken in the Councell of Becancelde where he himself fate as a civill president and where the Decrees of the Councell issud in his name and by his Authority firmiter decernimus c. His words are these It belongs to him the King to make Earls Dukes Noble men Princes Presidents and secular Iudges but it belongs to the Metropolitan or Archbishop to govern the Churches to choose Bishops Abbats and other Prelates c. If King Withred had said It belongs to the Pope to govern the Churches it had made for his purpose indeed But saying as he doth it belongs to the Metropolitan it cuts the throat of his cause and shews clearly what we say that our Metropolitans are not subordinate to any single ecclesiasticall Superior As for the bounds between the King and the Archbishop we know them well enough he needed not trouble his head about it They suffered their Subjects to professe that qui non communicat Ecclesiae Romanae Hereticus est quicquid ipsa statuerit suscipio quod damnaverit damno He is an Heretick that holds not communion with the Church of Rome what she determines I receive what she condemns I condemn Supposing these to be the very words of Ealred though I have no reason to trust his citations further then I see them and supposing them to have
been spoken in R. C. his sense yet Ealred was but one Doctor whose authority is not fit to counterbalance the publick Laws and Customes and Records â—f a whole Kingdome Neither doth it appear â—hat they who sate at the sterne in those dayes did either suffer it or so much as know of it Books were not published then so soon as they were written but lay most commonly dormient many years or perhaps many ages before they see the Sun But Ealred his sense was not the same it could not be the same with R. C. his No man in those dayes did take the Church of Rome for the Roman Catholick or Universall Church but for the Diocess of Rome which their best protectors doe make to be no otherwise infallible then upon supposition of the inseparability of the Papacy from it which Bellarmine himself confesseth to be but a probable opinion Neque Scriptura neque traditio habet sedem Apostolicam ita fixaem esse Romae ut inde auferré non possit There is neither Scripture nor Tradition to prove that the Apostolick See is so fixed to Rome that it cannot be removed from it Therefore these words of Ealred cannot be applyed to this present question because the subject of the question is changed And if they be understood simply and absolutely of an universall communion with the Church of Rome both present and future they are unfound in the judgment of Bellarraine himself It remains therefore that they are either to be understood of communicating in essentials and so we communicate with the Church of Rome at this day Or that by the Church of Rome Ealred did understand the Church of Rome of that age whereas all those exceptions which we have against them for our not communicating with them actually in all things are either sprung up since Ealreds time or at least since that time made or declared necessarie conditions of their communion Lastly I desire the Reader to take notice that these words of Ealred doe contain nothing against the politicall Supremacy of Kings nor against the liberties of the English Church nor for the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome over England and so might have been passed by as impertinent They endited their Letters to the Pope in these words Summo universali Ecclesiae Pastori Nicholao Edwardus Dei gratia Angliae Rex debitam subjectionem omnimodum servitium It seemeth that the Copies differ some have not Pastori but Patri nor universali but universalis Ecclesiae and no more but obedientiam for omnimodum servitium But let him read it as he list it signifies nothing There cannot be imagined a weaker or a poorer argument then that which is drawn from the superscription or subscription of a Letter He that enrolls every man in the catalogue of his friends and servants who subscribe themselves his loving or obliged friends or his faithfull and obedient servants will finde his friends and servants sooner at a feast then at a fray Titles are given in Letters more out of custome and formality then out of judgment and truth The Pope will not stick to endite his Letter To the King of the Romans and yet suffer him to have nothing to doe in Rome Every one who endited their Letters to the high and mighty Lords the States Generall did not presently beleeve that was their just Title before the King of Spains resignation Titles are given sometimes out of curtesie sometimes out of necessity because men will not lose their business for want of a complement He that will write to the great Duke of Muscovia must stile him Emperour of Russia How many have lost their Letters and their labours for want of a mon Frere or mon Confine my Brother or my Cousin It were best for him to quit his argument from superscriptions otherwise he will be shewed Popes calling Princes their Lords and themselves their Subjects and Servants yea Princes most glorious and most excellent Lords and themselves Servants of Servants that is Servants in the snperlative degree They will finde Cyprian to his brother Cornelius health and Justinian to John the most holy Archbishop of the City of Rome Patriarch Did St. Cyprian beleeve Cornelius to be his Master and stile him Brother or owe obedience and service and send but health Had is been comely to stile an ecclesiasticall Monarch plaine Archbishop and Patriarch and for the Christian World to set down only the Citie of Rome But what doth he take hold on in this superscription to their advantage Is it the word summo That cannot be it is confessed generally that the Bishop of Rome had priority of order among the Patriarchs Or is it the word universali Neither can that be all the Patriarchs were stiled oecumenicall or universall not in respect of an universall power but their universall care as Saint Paul saith The care of all the Churches did lie upon him and their presidence in generall Councels It cannot be the word Pastori all Bishops were anciently called Pastors Where then lies the strength of this Argument In the words due subjection No. There is subjection to good advise as well as to just commands The principall Patriarchs bore the greatest sway in a generall Councell in that respect there was subjection due unto them The last words all forts of service are not in some Copies and if they were verborum ut nummorum as they are commonly used as well from Superiors to their Inferiors as from Inferiors to their Superiors they signifie nothing I wonder he was not afraid to cite this superscription considering the clause in Pope Nicholas his letter to King Edward Vobis veroì posteris vestris Regibus committimus Advocationem tuitionem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostrâ cum consilio Episcoporum Abbatum constituas ubique quae justa sunt King Edward by the fundamentall Law of the Land was the Vicar of God to govern the Church of God within his dominions But if he had not here is a better title from the See of Rome it self then that whereby the King of Spain holds all the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Sicily to him and his heirs at this day They professed that it was Heresie to deny that the Pope omni praesidet creaturae is above every creature That is no more then to say that the Bishop of Rome as successor to Saint Peter is principium unitatis the beginning of unity or hath a principality of order not of power above all Christians It will be hard for him to gain any thing at the hands of that wife and victorious Prince Edward the third who disposed of Ecclesiastical dignities received homage and fealty from his Prelats who writ that so much admired Letter to the Pope for the liberties of the English Church cui pro tunc Papa aut Cardinales rationabiliter respondere nesciebant to which the Pope and
Cardinals did not know at that time how to give a reasonable answer Wherein he pleads that his Ancestors had granted free elections ad rogatum instantiam dictae sedis upon the earnest entreaty of the See of Rome which now they endeavoured to usurpe and seize upon who made himself in Parliament the Judge of all the grievances which the Kingdome sustained from the Pope who made expresse Lawes against the oppressions of the Roman Court declaring publickly That it was his duty and that he was bound by his oath to make remedies against them This was more then twenty such complements as this which is most true in a right sense That it was but a complement appeareth evidently by this The question was about Edward the thirds right to the Crown of France and his confederation with Lewis of Bavaria these were no Ecclesiasticall matters the King sent his Ambassadors to the Pope to treat with him about his right to the Crown of France But notwithstanding his supereminent judgment he gave them in charge to treat with the Pope not as a Iudge but as a private person and a common friend not in form nor in figure of judgement He attributeth no more to the Pope then to another man according to the reasons which he shall produce His own words are these parati semper nedum a vestro sancto cunctis presidente judicio imo a quolibet alio de veritate contrarii si quis eam noverit humiliter informari qui sponte rationi subjicimur aliam datam nobis intelligi veritatem cum plena humili gratitudine complectemur Being ready alwaies humbly to be informed of the truth of the contrary if any man know it not only from your holy judgement being placed in dignity before all or as it is in another place before every Creature but from any other And we who are subject to reason of our own accord will embrace the truth with humility and thankfulnesse when it is made known unto us This was Edward the thirds resolution to submit to reason and the evidence of the truth from whomsoever it proceeded Yet though the case was meerly Civil and not at all of Ecclesiasticall cognizance and though Edward the third did not would not trust the Pope with it as a Judge but as an indifferent Friend yet he gives him good words That his judgement was placed in dignity above all Creatures which to deny was to allow of Heresie Why doe we hear words when we see Deeds The former Popes had excommunicated Lewis of Bavaria and all who should acknowledge him to be Emperor Neverthelesse Edward the third contracted a firm league with him and moreover became his Lieutenant in the Empire Pope Benedict takes notice of it writes to King Edward about it intimates the decrees of his predecessors against Lewis of Bavaria and his adherents signifying that the Emperor was deprived and could not make a Lieutenant The King gives fair words in generall but notwithstanding all that the Pope could doe to the contrary proceeds renews his league with the Emperor and his Commission for the Lieutenancy and trusted more to his own judgement then co the supereminent judgement of the Pope So he draws to a conclusion of this Chapter and though he have proved nothing in the world yet he askes What greater power did ever Pope challenge then here is professed Even all the power that is in controversie between us and them He challenged the politicall headship of the English Church under pretence of an Ecclesiasticall Monarchy He challenged a Legislative power in Ecclesiasticall causes He challenged a Dispensative power above the Lawes against the Lawes of the Church whensoever wheresoever over whomsoever He challenged liberty to send Legates and hold legantine Courts in England without licence He challenged the right of receiving the last Appeals of the Kings Subjects He challenged the Patronage of the English Church and investitures of Bishops with power to impose a new Oath upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance He challenged the first Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiasticall livings and a power to impose upon them what pensions or other burthens he pleased He challenged the Goods of Clergy-men dying intestate c. All which are expresly contrary to the fundamentall Lawes and Customes of England He confesseth That it is Lawfull to resist the Pope invading either the Bodies or the Souls of men or troubling the Common-wealth or indeavoring to destroy the Church I aske no more Yea forsooth saith he if I may be judge what doth invade the Soul No I confesse I am no fit Judge No more is he The main question is who shall be Judge what are the Liberties and Immunities of a nationall Church and what are the grievances which they sustain from the Court of Rome Is it equall that the Court of Rome themselves should be the Judges Who are the persons that doe the wrong Nothing can be more absurd In vain is any mans sentence expected against himself The most proper and the highest judicature upon Earth in this case is a generall Councell as it was in the case of the Cyprian Bishops and their pretended Patriarch And untill that remedy can be had it is lawfull and behooveth every Kingdome or nationall Church who know best their own rights and have the most feeling where their Shoe wrings them to be their own Judges I mean only by a judgment of discretion to preserve their own rights inviolated and their persons free from wrong sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae And especially Sovereign Princes are bound both by their Office and by their Oaths to provide for the security and indemnity of their Subjects as all Roman Catholicks Princes doe when they have occasion And here he fals the third time upon his former Theme that in things instituted by God the abuse doth not take away the use Which we doe willingly acknowledge and say with Saint Austine Neque enim si peccavit Cecilianus ideo haereditatem suam perdidit Christus sceleratae impudentiae est propter crimina hominis quae orbi terrarum non possis ostendere communionem orbis terrarum velle damnare Neither if Cecilian offended did Christ therefore lose his inheritance And it is wicked impudence for the crimes of a man which thou canst not shew to the World to be willing to condemn the communion of the World But neither was that authority of the Bishop of Rome which we have rejected either of Divine or Apostolicall institution Nor have we rejected it for the personall faults of some Popes but because it was faulty in it self Nor have we separated our selves from the conjoyned communion of the Christian World in any thing I wish the Romanists were no more guilty thereof then we Of King Henries exemption of himself from all spirituall jurisdiction we have spoken formerly in this very Chapter CAAP. 5. THe scope of my fifth Chapter was to
or limitations necessary in every reformation first that it be made advisedly upon well grounded experience Secondly that it be done in a Nationall Synod Thirdly that it be only in matters of humane right Fourthly that nothing be changed but that which is become hurtfull or impeditive of a greater good he leaves out three of these restrictions altogether and only mentions one that it be in matters of humane institution as if the rest were of no consideration He cannot chuse but know that by the Doctrine of their own Schools if a man doe vow any thing to God which afterwards is found to be hurtfull and impeditive of a greater good maketh his vow null and voyd and disobligeth him from performance of it If it be true in a vow to God it is more true in a promise made to man and he needeth no dispensation to retract it But let us follow his steps First whereas I alledge their own Authors to prove that to whom a Kingdome is granted all necessary power is granted without which a Kingdome cannot be governed he distinguisheth between the necessity of the Kingdome and the benefit of the Kingdome a King hath power to doe whatsoever is necessary for the government of his Kingdome but not whatsoever is for the benefit of his Kingdome To this I answer first That he confounds Power and the exercise of Power or the necessity of the one with the necessity of the other Power is the necessary qualification of a King But the act or exercise of that power may be free and sufficiently grounded not only upon the necessity but upon the benefit of the Kingdome A Legislative power is necessary to a King but this doth not imply that he cannot make a Law except only in cases of absolute necessity Power to administer an Oath or to commit a Malefactor is a necessary qualification of a Judg yet he may administer an Oath upon discretion or commit a man npon suspicion If a King or a Judg invested with such a power should misapply it or erre in the exercise of it he owes an account to God and the Prince from whom he received the power but the Subject is bound at least to passive obedience Now let him see his own mistake The question between us is whether a power to reform abuses and inconveniences be necessary to a King to which all his Subjects owe at least passive obedience He answers concerning the exercise of this power in what cases a King may lawfully use it but if the King mistake the case yet the Subject owes passive obedience Secondly I answer that there is a double necessity first a simple or absolute necessity Secondly a respective necessity secundum quid which we may call a necessity of convenience which is a true necessity and a sufficient ground of a Christian Law that is rather to make such a Law then to sustein such indignities or to run such extreme hazards or lose such great advantaages As it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things And of four things these were three to abstain from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled None of which things were necessary in themselves either necessitate medii or necessitate precepts But they were necessary to avoyd scandall and to gain advantage upon the Jews and to retein them in a good opinion of Christian Religion Saint Iames used the same argument to Saint Paul Thou seest Brother how many thousands of Iews there are which beleeve and they are all zealous of the Law c. If the advantage be but small it is not worth abrogating a Law or changing a received custome but if it be great Malo semel excusare quare secerim quam semper quare non secerim It is better to make one just apology why a man doth abrogate such a prejudicall custome then to be making dayly excuses why he doth not abrogate it Vivere non est vita sed valere To live is not to draw out a lingering breath but to injoy health So the health and convenience and good constitution of a Kingdome is more to be regarded then the bare miserable being of it Thirdly I answer that our Reformation in England was not only beneficiall and advantagious to the Kingdome but necessary to avoid intolerable extortions and grosse unjust and generall usurpations of all mens rights They found plainly that this forrein Jurisdiction did interfere with the Sovereign power The Oaths which Bishops were forced to take to the Pope were examined in Parliament and found to be plainly contradictory to their Oathes of Allegiance and repugnant to that duty which they did owe to generall Councels They found that they were dayly exposed to perill of Idolatry and in danger dayly to have new Articles of Faith obtruded upon them they see that the Pope had implicitly quitted their Patriarchall right and challenged a Sovereignty over the Church by Divine right Lastly they see that this forrein Jurisdiction was become not only uselesse but destructive to those ends for which Patriarchall authority was first instituted As the Hangings are fitted to the House so was the externall Regiment of the Church fitted and adopted to the then State of the Empire when these Ecclesiasticall dignities were first erected for the ease and benefit of the Subject to the end that no man should be necessitated to seek further for Ecclesiasticall Justice then he did for Civil nor to travell without the bounds of his own Province for a finall sentence Therefore wheresoever there was a Civil Metropolis there was placed an Ecclesiasticall Metropolitan also And where there was a Secular Protarch there was constituted an Ecclesiasticall Patriarch to avoid the confusion and clashing of Jurisdictions This is plain out of the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon that whereas some ambitious persons contrary to the Laws Ecclesiasticall had multiplied Metropoliticall Sees making two in one Province where there was but one mother City or one Civil Metropolis the Councell defined that no man should attempt any such thing for the future But those Cities which had been adorned with the name of Metropolis by the Edicts of Kings should only injoy that priviledge And more plainly by that of Anacletus cited by Gratian if we may credit him Provinces were divided long before the comming of Christ for the most part And afterwards that division was renued by the Apostles and Saint Clement our predecessor so that in the chief Cities of all Provinces where long since were primates of the Secular Law and the highest judiciary Power c. There the Divine and Ecclesiasticall Lawes commanded Patriarchs or Primates to be placed and to be which two though they be different in names yet retein the same sense This was well so long as the Empire continued in the same State and the Provinces
take another Perhaps the Popes in justice might by Gods just disposition be an occasion but it was no ground of the Reformation And if it had yet neither this nor his other exceptions doe concern the cause at all There is a great difference between bonum and bene between a good action and an action well done An action may be good and lawfull in it self and yet the ground of him that acteth it sinister and his manner of proceeding indirect as we see in Iehu's reformation This concerned King Henries person but it concerns not us at all King Henrie protested that it was his conscience they will not beleeve him Queen Katherine accused Cardinall Wolsey as the Author of it she never accused Anne Bolen who was in France when that business began The Bishop of Lincoln was imployed to Oxford Bishop Gardiner and Dr. Fox to Cambridge to see the cause debated Besides our own Universities the Universities of Paris Orleans Angew Burges Bononia Padua Tholouse and I know not how many of the most learned Doctors of that age did all subscribe to the unlawfullness of that Marriage which he calleth lawfull The Bishop of Worcester prosecuted the divorce The Bishops of York Duresme Chester were sent unto Queen Katherine to perswade her to lay aside the title of Queen The Bishops of Canterbury London Winchester Bath Lincoln did give sentence against the Marriage Bishop Bonner made the appeal from the Pope The greatest sticklers were most zealous Roman Catholicks And if wise men were not mistaken that business was long plotted between Rome and France and Cardinall Wolsey to breake the league with the Emperour and to make way for a new Marriage with the Duchess of Alenson sister to the King of France and a stricter league with that Crown But God did take the wife in their own crastiness Yea even Clement the seventh had once given out a Bull privately to declare the Marriage unlawfull and invalid if his Legate Campegius could have brought the King to comply with the Popes desires I will conclude this point with two testimonies the one of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Quid aliud debuit aut potuit c. What else ought the King or could the King doe then with the full consent of his People and judgment of his Church to be loosed from an unlawfull contract and to enjoy one that was lawfull and allowed and leaving her whom neither Law nor Equity did permit him to hold to apply himselfe to a chaste and lawfull marriage In which cause whereas the sentence of the Word of God alone had been sufficient to which all ought to submit without delay yet his Majestie disdained not to use the censures of the gravest men and most famous Universities The second is the testimonie of two Archbishops two Dukes three Marquesses thirteen Earls five Bishops six and twenty Barons two and twenty Abbats with many Knights and Doctors in their Letter to the Pope Causae ipsius justitia c. The justice of the cause it self being approved every where by the judgments of most learned men determined by the suffrages of most famous Universities being pronounced and defined by English French Italians as every one among them doth excell the rest in learning c. Though he call it a lawfull Marriage yet it is but one Doctors opinion And if it had been lawfull the Pope and the Clergy were more blame worthy then King Henry Secondly he faith he wanted due moderation because he forced the Parliament by fear to consent to his proceedings I have shewed sufficiently that they were not forced by their Letter to the Pope by their Sermons preached at St. Pauls Crosse by their perswasions to the King by their pointed looks to which I may add their Declaration called the Bishops Book signed by two Archbishops and nineteen Bishops Nor doe I remember to have read of any of note that opposed it but two who were prisoners and no Parliament men at that time Sir Thomas More yet when King Henry writ against Luther he advised him to take heed how he advanced the Popes authority too much left he diminished his own And Bishop Fisher who had consented in convocation to the Kings title of the Supreme Head of the English Church quantum per Christi legem licet But because Bishop Gardiner is the only witness whom he produceth for proof of this allegation I will shew him out of Stephen Gardiner himself who was the Tyrant that did compell him Quin potius orbirationem neddeâ—e volui c. I desired rather to give an account to the World what changed my opinion and compelled me to dissent from my former words and deeds That compelled me to speak it in good time which compelleth all men when God thinketh fit the force of truth to which all things at length doe obey Behold the Tyrant not Henry the eight but the force of truth which compelled the Parliament Take one testimonie more out of the same Treatise But I fortified my self so that as if I required the judgment of all my senses I would not submit nor captivate my understanding to the known and evident truth nor take it to be sufficiently proved unless I first heard it with mine eares and smelt it with my nose and see it with mine eyes and felt it with my hands Here was more of obstinacie then tyranny in the case Either Stephen Gardiner did write according to his conscience and then he was not compelled or else he dissembled and then his second testimonie is of no value It is not my judgment but the judgment of the Law it self Semel falsus semper presumitur falsus To the third condition he faith only that Henry the eight had not sufficient authority to reforme first because it was the power of a small part of the Church against the whole I have shewed the contrarie that our Reformation was not made in opposition but in pursuance of the acts of generall Councells neither did our Reformers meddle without their own spheres And secondly because the Papacy is of divine right Yet before he told us that it was doubtfull and very courteously he would put it upon me to prove that the Regiment of the Church by the Pope is of humane institution But I have learned better that the proof rests upon his side both because he maintains an affirmative and because we are in possession It were an hard condition to put me to prove against my conscience that the universall Regency of the Pope is of humane right who doe absolutely deny both his divine right and his humane right His next exception is that it is no sufficient warrant for Princes to meddle in spirituall matters because some Princes have done so If he think the externall Regiment of the Church to be a matter meerly spirituall he is much mistaken I cite not the exorbitant acts of some single
would content himself therewith But the chief grounds of our separation are those which are inherent in the Papacy it self qua talis as it is now defended as they seek to obtrude it upon us the lawless exorbitant oppression of the Roman Court the sovereignty of the Pope above general Councels his legislative and judiciary Power in all Christian Kingdomes against the will of the right owners his pretended right to convocate Synods and confirm Synods and dissolve Synods and hold legantine Courts and obtrude new points of Faith as necessary Articles and receive the last appeals and dispose of all ecclesiasticall Dignities and Benefices at his pleasure and impose Tenths and first-Fruits and Subsidies and Pensions to invest Bishops and sell Pardons and Indulgences and Palls These and the like are not the Faults of Innocent the tenth or Vrban the eighth or Sextus or Pius or Alexander or Clement or any pâ—rticular Pope But they are the Faults of the Pâ—pacy it self woven into the body of it and without the acknowledgement of which they will suffer us to hold no communion with the Papacy I doe not say that they are insepâ—rable for the time hath been when the Papacy was without those Blemishes but that it is folly at this time to hope from them for the anceient liberty of the Church as the Country-man expected that the river should be râ—n out and become drie Rusticus expectat ut defluat amnis at ille Labitur labetur in omne volubilis aevum We expected remedy and hoped for reformation from the time of Henry the first in whose reign their encroachments did begin to grow signall and notorious untill the daies of Henry the eighth throughout the reigns of seventeen succeeding Kings and found not the least ease from them but what we carved out our selves No Law of God or man doth require that we should wait eternally The Lord of the Vineyard thought three years enough to expect fruit of the fruitless Figtree and when it improved not in the fourth year the Sentence issued against it cut it down why cumbreth it the ground He urgeth that if some Popes have wronged England temporally far more Popes have benifited it much more both temporrally and spiritually Sufficit unus huic operi This were more comely in our mouths then in theirs Some man would goe make an estimate of Papall Importations as Parchment and Lead and Wax and Crosses Agnus dei's and Reliques And their Exportations Gold Silver Jewels and whatsoever the land afforded either for necâ—ssity or delight But I will spare his modesty and suppose more then ever he will be able to prove Ancient virtues or benefits do not justifie an old institution when it is grown useless and subject to desperate abuses The brasen Serpent was instituted by God himself it was a singular type of Christ it saved the temporall lives of the Israelites and pointed them out the right way to eternall life Yet when it was become useless and abused over much Hezekiah is commended for breaking it in pieces and calling it Nehushtan an useless piece of common brass that had quite lost its ancient virtue The Order of the Templers was instituted about the year 1120. Scarcely any Order can shew such an hopefull beginning at their first institution or such an huge progress towards grearness in so short a revolution of time He who shall read these extraordinary praises which are given them by St. Bernard who is thought to have been the Author of their rule will take them rather to have been a Society of Angels then of mortall men Yet in the daies of Clement the fifth they were generally suppressed throughout the whole world as it were in an instant not for common faults but horrid crimes and prodigious vilanies by the joint consent of the occidentall Church and sovereign Princes I inquire not whether their accusation was just or not but from hence I doe collect that in the judgement of this occidentall world a good institution may be deservedly abrogated for subsequent abuses As we had not the same latitude of power which they who censured them hâ—d so we did not act without our own Sphear or the Bounds of the English Dominions In the vindication I urged three points wherein the Romans doe agree with us First that sovereign Princes not only may but in justice are obliged to repress the tyrany of ecclesiasticall Judges and protect their Subjects from their violence and free them from their oppressed Yoke To this he answereth nothing Secondly that Princes may be inabled either by grant or by prescription I added by their sovereign authority over the whole Body politick to exercise all externall ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction by themselves or by fit Delegates and to make ecclesiasticall Lawes for the externall Regiment of the Church to which their Subjects owe obedience This alone were sufficient to free us from Schism But to all this likewise he saith not one word good or bad Thirdly that it is lawfull in severall cases to substract obedience from the Pope And among other proofs I cited the Councell of Towers To this only he answers That they acknowledged it lawfull to withdraw obedience from this or that Pope in this or that case but not from Papall Authority it self Whereas I shewed him in the vindication that the same equitie which doth allow substraction of obedience from this or that Pope for personall faults as Schisme or Simony doth likewise allow substraction of obedience from him and his Successors for faulty Principles as obtruding new Creeds pressing of unlawfull Oathes palpable usurpation of undoubted Rites even untill they be reformed Papall Authority without the Pope is but an imaginary idea whosoever substracts obedience from the true Pope substracts obedience from the Papall Authority Perhaps indeed not simply or absolutely but respectively as he saith in this or that case But what if the Pope will not suffer them to pay their obedience in part so far as it is due but have it entire according to his own demands or none at all Then it is not they who separate themselves from Papall Authority but it is Papall Authority which separates them from it Either he understands Papall Authority such as it ought to be de jure and then we have substracted no obedience from it for we ought it none and are not unwilling for peace sake to pay it more respect then we doe owe. Or else by Papall Authority he understands a spirituall Monarchy such as it is now with superiority above generall Councells and infallibility of Judgement and legislative Authority and patronage of all ecclesiasticall Preferments c. And then the universall Church did never acknowledge any such Papall Authority And then to withdraw our obedience from it is not to substract obedience from a lawfull but from an unlawfull and tyrannicall Power When sovereign Princes doe withdraw obedience from this or that Pope in this or that
case they make themselves Judges of the difference between them and the Court of Rome as whether the Pope have invaded their priviledges or usurped more Authority then is due unto him or in contemning his censures which the Councell of Towers doth expresly allow them to doe and judging whether the Popes Key have erred or not Yeeld thus much and the question is at an end That sovereign Princes within their own Dominions are the last Judges of their own Liberties and of papall oppressions and usurpations and the validity or invalidity of the Popes censures There is one thing more in this discourse in this place which I may not omit That Papall Authority is instituted immediately by God but not Regall Cujus contrarium verum est He was once or seemed to be of another minde For of almighty God his meer bounty and great grace they Kings receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Scepters Saint Paul saâ—th expresly speaking of civill Powers The Powers that be are ordeined of God and whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation The eternall Wisdome of the Father hath said By me Kings reign and Princes decree Iustice. If they be ordeined by God and reign by God then they are instituted by God Therefore they are justly stiled the living Images of God that saveth all things He who said by me Kings reign never said by me Popes reign Kings may inherit by the Law of man or be elected by the Suffrages of men But the Regall Office and Regall Power is immediately from God No man can give that which he himself hath not The People have not power of Life and Death That must come from God By the Law of nature Fathers of Families were Princes and when Fathers of Families did conjoyn their power to make one Father of a Country to whom doth he owe his power but to God from whom Fathers of Families had their power by the Law of nature As for the Pope he derives his Episcopall power from Christ his Patriarchall power from the Church and Monarchicall power from himself After this in the vindication I descended to severall new considerations as namely the power of Princes to reform new Canons by the old Canons of the Fathers the subjection of Patriarchall power to Imperiall which I shewed by a signall example of Pope Gregory who obeied the command of Mauritius the Emperor though he did not take it to be pleasing to Almighty God the erection of new Patriarchates by Emperors and the translation of primacies by our Kings And so I proceeded to the grounds of their separation first the intolerable rapine and extortions of the Roman Court in England Secondly their unjust usurpations of the undoubted rights of all orders of men and particularly how they made our Kings to be their vassals and the Succession to the Crown arbitrary at their pleasures Thirdly because our Ancestors found by experience that such forrein jurisdiction was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiasticall discipline Fourthly sundry other inconveniences to have been dayly subject to the imposition of new Articles of Faith to be exposed to manifest perill of Idolatry to have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendome to have approved the Popes rebellion against generall Councels and to have their Bishops swear to maintain him in his rebellious usurpations Lastly the priviledge of the Britannick Churches the Popes disclaiming all his Patriarchall authority and their challenging of all this by Divâ—ne right which made their sufferings irremediable from Rome Lastly I shewed that our Ancestors from time to time had made more addresses to Rome for remedy then either in duty or in prudence they ought to have done All this he passeth by in silence as if it did not concern the cause at all Only he repeats his former distinction between the Pope the Papacy and the Roman Church which hath been so often confuted already and blameth Protestants for revolting from the Roman Church for the faults of some few Popes As if all these things which are mentioned here and set down at large in the vindication were but some infirmitives or some petty faults of some few Popes I have shewed him clearly that the most of our grounds are not the faults of the Popes but the faults of the Papacy it self And as for forsaking the Church of Rome he doth us wrong I shewed him out of our Canons in this very place that we have not forsaken it but only left their Communion in some points wherein they had left their Ancestors we are ready to acknowledge it as a Sister to the Britannick Church a Mother to the Saxon Church but as a Lady or Mistrisse to no Church Afterwards he descendth to two of the grounds of our Reformation to shew that they were insufficient The new Creed of Pius the 4 th and the withholding the Cup from the Laity Two of two and twenty make but a mean induction He may if he please see throughout this Treatise that we had other grounds bâ—sides these Yet I confesse that in his choise he hath swerved from the rules of prudence and hath not sought to leap over the Hedge where it was lowest First saith he The new Creed could not be the cause of the separation because the separation was made before the Creed He saith true if it had been only the reduction of these new mysteries into the form of a Creed that did offend us But he knoweth right well that these very points which Pius the 4 th comprehended in a new Symball or Creed were obtruded upon us before by his predecess ors as necessary Articles of the Roman Faith and required as necessary conditions of their Communion So as we must either receive these or utterly lose them This is the only difference that Pius the 4 th dealt in grosse his predecessors by retaile They fashioned the severall rods and he bound them up into a bundle He saith That the new Creed is nothing but certain points of Catholick Faith proposed to be sworn of some Ecclesiasticall Catholick persons as the 39 Articles were in the Protestants new Creed proposed by them to Ministers Pius the 4 th did not only injoyn all Ecclesiasticks Seculars and Regulars to swear to his new Creed but he imposed it upon all Christians as veram fidem Catholicam extra quam nemo salvus esse potest they are the very words of the Bull as the true Catholick Faith without believing of which no man can be saved This is a greater Obligation then an Oath and as much as the Apostles did impose for the reception of the Apostolicall Creed We doe not hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths extra quam non est salus without which there is no Salvation nor injoin Ecclesiastick persons to swear unto them but only to subscribe them as theologicall
which continue in communion with it are the onely Churches which have true doctrine in vertue of the first principle above mentioned and the right governement in virtue of the second and consequently are the entire Catholick or Vniversall Church of Christians all others by misbelief or Schisme being excluded Our answer is ready that the Church of Rome or the Court of Rome have sophisticated the true doctrine of Faith by their supplementall Articles and erroneous additions contrary to the first principle and have introduced into the Church a tyrannical and unlawfull government contrary to the second principle and are so far from being the entire Catholick Church that by them both they are convicted to have made themselves guilty of supertio n and Schisme And lastly where he saith that my onely way to clear our Church from Schisme is either by disproving the former to be the necessary rule of unity in Faith or the latter the necessary bond of governement he is doubly mistaken First we are the persons accused our plea is negative or not guilty So the proof lieth not upon us but upon him to make good his accusation by proving us Schismaticks Secondly if the proof did rest upon our sides we do not approve ofâ—his adviâ—e It is not we who have altered the Doctrine or Discipline which Christ left to his Church by our substractions but they by their additions There is no doubt but Christs legacy ought to be preserved inviolable but we deny that Christ bequeathed spiritual Monarchy over his Church to S. Peter and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters heir by Christs ordination And that this was the constant beliefe of the Catholick world at any time This is his province let him either make this good or hold his peace Sect. 2. So his Prologue is ended now we come to his animadversions upon my arguments My first ground was because not Protestants but Roman Catholicks themselves did make the first separation To which his first answer is If it were so how doth that acquit us since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning Many waies First it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence when their best friends and best able to judge who preached for them and writ for them who acted for them and suffered for them who in all other things were great zeloâ—s of the Roman Religion and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and Fagot did yet condemn thâ—m and justify this separation Secondly though it doth not alwaies excuse a tâ—to from all guilt and punishment to be misled by others into errour If the blind llead the blind both fall into the ditch yet it doth alwaies excuse a tanto it lesseneth the sin and extenuateth the guilt Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not so cuipable as the first authors and ringleaders in Schisme If this separation be an Errour in Protestants the Roman Catholicks do owe an account to God both for themselves and us did they find cause to turne the Pope out of England as an intruder and usurper and could Protestants who had no relation to Rome imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again Thirdly in this case it doth acquit us not onely a tanto but a toto not onely from such a degree of guilt but from all criminus Schisme so longas we seek carefuly after truth and do not violate the dictates of our Consciences If he will not believe me let himbeleeve S. Austin He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents if he enquire carefully after the truth and be ready to embrace it and to correct his errours when he finds them he is not to be reputed an hereticke If this be true in the case of heresy it is more true in the case of Schisme Thus if it had been a crime in them yer it is none in us but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us but a just and necessary duty Secondly he answereth that it is no sufficient proof that they were no Protestants because they persecuted Protestants For Protestants persecute Protestants Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians Puritans and Beownists persecute one another VVhat then were VVarham and Heath aud Thureleby Tunscall and Stokesley and Gardiner and Bonner c. all Protestants did Protestants enjoy Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks iâ— England and say Masses in those daies will he part so easily with the greatest Patrons and Champions of their Church and opposers of the Reformation If he had wriâ— thus much whilest they were living they would have been very angry with him Yet at the least if they were Protestants let him tell me which of these Sects they were of Lutheranâ— c. But he telleth us that the reouncing of the Pope is the most essentiall part of our reformation and so they had in them the quintessence of a Protestant He is mistaken This part of the reformation was done to our hands it was their reformation not ours But if he will needs have the kingdomes and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the eighths daies onely for renouncing the Popes absolute universall Monarchy I am well contented we shall not lose by the bargain Then the Primitive Church were all Protestants then all the Grecian Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day then we want not store of Protestants even in the besome of the Roman Church it self Sect. 3. My second Ground saith he was because in the separation of England from Rome there was no new law made but onely their ancient Liberties vindicated This he is pleased to call notoriously false impudence it self because a law was made in Henry the eighths time and an oath invented by which was given to the King to be head of the Church and to have all the power the Pope did at that time possess in England Is this the language of the Roman Sâ—hooles or doth he think perhaps with his outcriâ—s and clamours as the Turks with their Alla Alla to daunt us and drive us from our cause Christian Reader of what Communion soever thou art be but indifferent and I make thee the Judge where this notorious falshood and impudence doth rest between him and me I acknowledge this was the Title of my fourth Chapter that the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome did make no now law but vindicate their ancient Liberties It seemeth he confureth the Titles without looking into the Chapters did I say they made no new statutes No I cited all the new statutes which they did make and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here Yet I said they made no new law because it was the law of the land before that statute was made The Customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common Law of the
land when soever these were infringed or an attempt made to destroy them as the liberties of the Crowne and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope it was the manner to restore them or to declare them by a statute which was not operative to make or create new law but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law This I told him expressely in the vindication and cited the judgement of our greatest Lawyers Fitz Herbirt and my Lord Cook to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law but declarative to restore ancient law This appeareth undeniably by the statute it self That England is an Empire and that the King as head of the body politicke consisting of the spirituality and temporality hath plenary power to render finall Iustice for all matters Here he seeth expressely that the dolitcall supremacy or headship of the King over the spirituality as well as temporality which is all that we assert at this day was the an e nt fundamentall law of England And lest hâ—e should accuse this Parliament of partialiâ—y I produced another that was more ancient The Crowne of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately subjected to God in all things touching it's Regality and to no other and ought not to be submitted to the Pope Here the Kings politicall Supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamentall Law of the Land Let him not say that this was intended onely in temporall matters for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressely Ecclesiasticall What was his meaning to conceal all this and much more and to accuse me of impudence Secondly he saith that I bring diverse allegations wherein the Popes pretences were not admitted or where the Pope is expressely denied the power to do such and such things Do we professe the Pope can pretend no more then his right Doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted He stileth the Authorities by me produced meer Allegations yet they are as authentick Records as England doth afford But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in generall expressions of the Popes pretences and such or such things as if the controversy had been onely about an handfull of goats wool I will make bold to represent some of the Popes pretences and their declarations against them And if he be of the same mind with his Ancestours in those particulars he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question They declared that it was the custom or common law of the land ut nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa that no Pope might be appealed unto without the Kings licence They made a law that if any one were found bringing in the Popes letters or mandates into the kingdome let him be apprehended and let justice passe upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and kingdome They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiasticall causes concerning the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church over all Ecclesiastical persons in all ages as well of the Saxon as of the Norman Kings They permitted not the Pope to endow Vicars nor make spiritual corporations nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary nor appropriate Churches nor to dispose Benefices by lapse nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy but the King did all these things as I shewed at large in the vindication They permitted not the Popes canon law to have any place in England further then they pleased to receive it They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishopricks and investitures of Bishops They suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the Kings license They admitted no Legates from the Pope but meerly upon courtesy and if any was admitted he was to take his oath to doe nothing derogatory to the King or his Crowne If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication in England without the Kings consent or bring over the Popes bull he forfeited all his goods So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English Subject nor dispose of an English Benefice nor send a Legate a latere orso much as an authoritative bul into England nor to reâ—eive an appeal out of England without the kings license But saith he To limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the rsstraints extend not This was not meerly to limit an authority but to deny it VVhat lawfull Jurisdiction could remain to him in England who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence nor to send any Citation or sentence thither nor execute any authority over an English Subject either at Rome by himself or in England by his deputies without licence That he exercised all these acts at sometimes there is no doubt of it But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent Give us the same limitation which our Ancestours alwayes claimed that no forraign authority shall be exercised in England withour leave and then give the Pope as much authority as you please volenti non fit injuria consent takes away error He is not wronged who gives leave to another to wrong him He demandeth first were not those bawes in force in the beginning of Henry the eighths raign Yes but it is no strange matter to explaine or confirm or renew ancient laws upon emergent and subsequent abuses as we see in magna Charta the statute of proviso's and many other Statutes Secondly he asketh whether we began our Religion there that is at that time when these ancient lawes were made no I have told him formerly that these statutes were onely declarative what was the ancient common law of the kingdome VVe began our Religion from Joseph of Arimathea's time before they had a Church at Rome But it is their constant use to make the least reformation to be a new Religion Lastly he enquireth whether there be not equivolent laws to these in France Spaine Germany and Italy it self and yet they are Catholicks and hold communication with the Pope Yes there are some such laws in all these places by him mentioned perhaps not so many but the liberties of the French Church are much the same with the English as I have shewed in the vindication And therefore the Popes friends do exclude France out of the number of these Countries which they term Pays d' obedience loyall Countries VVhat â—use some other Countries can make of the Papacy more then we in England concerns not me nor this present discourse And here to make his conclusion answerable to his preface in this section he cries out How ridiculous how impudent a manner of speaking is this to force his Readers to renounce their eyes and
of Faith that there is a purgatory or it is an article of Faith that there is no purgatory Faith is a certain assent grounded upon the truth and authority of the revealer opinion is an uncertain inclining of the mind more to the one part of the contradiction then the other There are an hundred contradictions in Theologicall opinions between the Romanists themselves much grearer then some of these three controversies wherin he instanceth Yet they dare not say that either the affirmatives or negatives are articles of Faith In things not necessary a man may fluctuate safely between two opinions indifferently or incline to the one more then the other without certain adherence or adhere certainly without Faith We know no other necessary Articles of Faith but those which are comprehended in the Apostles creed The last proof of our moderation was our readinesse in the preparation of our minds to beleeve and practise whatsoever the Catholick Church even of this present age doth universally believe and practise This he saith is the greatest mock foole proposition of all the rest Wherefore For two reasons First we say there is no universall Church Then we have not onely renounced our Creed that is the badge of our Christianity whereof this is an expresse Article but our reason also If there be many particular churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ himselfe is head and king His onely ground of this calumny is because we will not acknowledge the Roman Church that is a particular Church to be the universall Church The second reason is because we say if there be a Catholick Church it is indetermined that is no man knows which it is Then it is all one as if it were not Non existentis non apparentis eadem est ratio It is a brave thing to calumniate boldly that something may stick We know no virtuall Church indeed that is one person who hath in himself eminently and virtually as much certainty of truth and infallibility of judgement as the universall Church but we acknowledge the representative Church that is a generall councell and the essentiall Church that is the multitude or multitudes of believers either of all ages which make the Symbolicall Church or of this age which make the present Catholick Church but mala mens malus animus He knoweth right well that they themselves are divided into five or six severall opinions what that Catholick Church is into the authority whereof they make the last resolution of their Faith So it is not true of us but of themselves it is true that their Catholick Church is indeterminate that is they know not certainly what it is Sect. 8. My fifth ground was that what the king and Church of England did in the separation of themselves from the Court of Rome is no more then all other Princes and Republicks of the Roman communion have done in effect or pleaded for that is made themselves the last Judges of their owne liberties and grievances For proof whereof I instanced in the Emperors the Kings of France and the liberties of the Sallicane Church the Kings of Spaine in their Kingdomes and Dominions of Sicily Castile Flanders the Kings of Portugall the Republick of Venice and in all these particular cases which were in difference between the Popes and us concerning the calling of Ecclesiasticall Synods making of Ecclesiasticall lawes disposing Benefices reforming the Churches within their owne dominions rejecting the Popes sentences buls Legates Nuncios shutting up their Courts forbidding appeals taking away their tenths first fruits pensions impositions c. To all which neither R. C. nor S. W. answers one word in particular Yet he paies me in generals Vir dolofus versatur in generalibus If his cause would have borne it we had had a more particular answer First he asketh what nonsense will not an ill cause bring a desperate man to Concedo omnia I grant all saving onely the application He must seek for the nonsense and the ill cause and the desperate man nearer home But what is the ground of his exception nothing but a contradiction first I would perswade the world that Papists are most injurious to Princes perjudicing their Crowne and subjecting their dominions to the will of the Pope and when I have scarce done saying so with a contrary blast I drive as far back again confessing all I said to be false and that the same Papists hold the Doctrine of the Protestants in effect If he will accuse other men of contradiction he must not overshoot himself so in his expressions but keep himself to the rules of opposition ad idem secundum idem eodem tempore Papists may be injurious to Princes in one respect and do them right in another They may be disloyall at one time and loyall at another Here is no shadow of contradiction But his greatest fault is to change the subject of the proposition I did not plead either that Papists were injurious to Princes or that the same Papists did hold the very doctrine of the Protestants nor so much as mention Papists in generall either to justifie them or to accuse them But I said that the Pope and the Court of Rome had been injurious to Roman Catholick Princes and that Roman Catholick Princes with their party had done themselves right against Popes and their Court. Here is no contrary blast nor contradiction any more then it is a contradiction to say that the Gnelphes maintained the Popes cause against the Emperour and the Gibilines maintained the Emperours cause against the Pope because both factions were Roman Catholicks both Italians He urgeth that the Popes did not cast out of their Communion those Cotholick divines who opposed them which argueth that it is not the Roman Religion nor any publick tenet in their Church that binds any to these rigorous assertions which the protestants condemne I know it is not their religion Our Religion and theirs is the same I know it is not the generall tenet of their Church But it is the tenet of the Court of Rome and the governing party amongst them It is but a poor comfort to one that is oppressed by their Court to know that there are particular Doctors which hold that he is wronged But to his question Did the Pope never excommunicate those Doctors that opposed him Yes sundry times both Princes and Doctors and whole Nations Sometimes he spared them perhaps he did not take notice of them whilest they were living the Pope and his Court have somewhat else to do then to inquire after the tenets of private Doctors perhaps they lived about the time of the councels of Constance and Basile when it had been easier for the Pope to have cast himselfe out of his throne then them out of the Church or perhaps they lived in places without his reach he knows who it was that said my Lord the Emperour defend me with the sword and I will defend thee with my pen. What
Alan Apol. c. 4. p. 59. Sond de Schism p 103 b. Denique nulla in re a side Catholica discessit nisi libidinis luxuâ—iâ— causa Sect. 4. A full justification of our penall Laws L 3. L. 1. de Orator Leg. 12. tal Aen Gaz. in Theo. phâ—asium Cont Aristâ—câ—aetem Timocratem Sand de Schis l. 1. Camd Annal Eliz. l. 2. p. 7. Id. l. 2. p. 98. Id l 4. p. 145 p. 150. p 164. Câ—md Annal l 3 p. 11 Ibid. l. 3. p. 44. l. 3. p. 74. Camd. An. l. 3. p. 132 Apol. Marc. p. 329. Camd. An. l 3. p. 11. Apr. 1. El. 23. ex Apol. Mart. Edm. Camp epist. ad Conc. R. Aug. pag. 127. Camb. Annal Eliz an 1581. Camb. Annal. Eliz an 1581. Sect. 1. The Kings of England alwaies politicall Heads of the English Church Not only acts of Papall Power but the Power it self contrary to our Laws Jurisdiction is from Ordination but Princes apply the matter Jurisdidiction enlarged and fortified with coercive power by Princes Henry the eighth not exempt from the power of the Keyes An. 25. H. 8. C. xxi Sect. 2. Saint Wilfrid Spel. conc An. 705. Bed l. 5. Ecc. hist c. 20. St. Austin and his â— Fellowes Bed l. 2. c 4. Bed l. 1. e. 25. See Speed l. 6 c. 9. 11.22 Fed. l. 1. c. 29. Bed l. 2. c. 2. Bed l. 2. c. 4. St. Melit L. 2. c. 4. Ibidem Bed l. 3. c 29. An Aâ—ch bâ—shop sent from Rome L. 4 c. 1. Bed l. 3. c 25. St. Peter Poâ—ter of Heaven Camd. Brit. p. 165. St Peter Superior to Saint Paul L. 2. Flor. c. 11. St. Peter a Monarch Bed l. 4 c. 18. John the precentor Malm. l 2â— Reg. c 9. Bishoprickâ— erâ—cted in England by the Pope answered Wil Malmes l. 1. Reg. c. 6. L. 2â— Floâ— c. 11. Edgar apud Ealred in orati ad Episcopos withred a pud Speim Conc p. 192 Clergy-men not exempted from seculaâ— Judges Plat. in politico Ibâ—dem 〈◊〉 Ser. 25 in 14 c 〈◊〉 Rome hath no certainâ—y of iâ—tallibilitiâ— Bell. de Ro. Pont. l. 4. â— 4. Aclred de vita Mirac Edw. Conf. superseriptions to Popes 2 Cor. 11. 28. Aclred ibidem Walsing Aâ— 133 How the Pope presideth above all Creatures Wâ—lsiâ—g â— An 1343. 25 E. 3. Wals. An. 1343. Wals. ibidem Aust. Ep. 50. Sect. 2. Patriarchs indâ—pâ—ndent upon a single Superior Socrat. l. 2. â— 11 Cypr. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3. Conc. â—â—hâ—sia part 1. act 7. Bâ—itain enjoyed the Cyprian pâ—iviledge Math Paris in H 3. an 1238. Itineâ—az Caâ—â—b l 2. c 1. Bellarmine maâ—â—s the Apostles all equal in power I. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 23. L. 4 de Ro. pont c. 16. L 1. de Ro Pont. c. 12. Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae Cont. Iovin l. 1. c. 14. How Peter head of the rest A superiority of Order is sufficient to prevent Schisme The rest Pastors as well as Peter De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. l. 1. c. 9. Sect. 2. Universality an incommunicable qualification of the Apostles 9 c. 8. s. 2. Bel l. 4. de Ro. Pont c â—4 All Episcopall jurisdiction is not derived from the Pope Sect. 3. The Chair of St. Peter not fixed to Rome by Divine right l. 2. de Pont. Ro. c. 12. Bel. de Pont. Ro. l. â—â— c. 23. Io 21.18 Bel de Râ— Poâ— 2. c. 12. Ibidem Nor by humane right Sect. 4. Gild. in Prol. Whether St. Peter converted Britain Onuph Of Eleutherius his sending into Engand And Victors into Scotland Ninian Bed l. 3â— c. 4. Palladius and S. Patrick Bed in viâ—a St. Patriâ— l. 1. Germanus and Lupus Prosp. in Chron. Constant de vita Germ. l. 1. Bed l 1. c. 17. Baron an 429. Constant l. c. 19. Idem c. 23 Austine Dubritius St. Samson Vind. p. 150. Pol. Virg. l 13 hist. Angl. Itiâ— Camb l. 1. c. 1. Râ—g â—â—ved An. anno 1â—99 King Iames. Matrix Ecclesia Sect. 5. Bed l. 2. c. 2. â—ed l. 3. c. 25. Vind. p. 115 116. Aqui. ◠〈◊〉 2.2 quaest 88. Art 2. 10. A King hath all power needfull for the preservation of his Kingdome A respective necessity is a sufficient ground of a Reformation Act. 15.28 Act. 21 20 Senec. Our Reformation was necessary Hall 24. Hen. 8. sol 205. The Regiment of the Church conformed to that of the Commonwealth conc chalc c. 11. vel 12. Dist. 99. In gain or losse all circumstances to be considered 1 Pet. 1.7 Our Reformation not contrary to the Decrees of generall Councels Novell 11 131. p. 127. But in pur suance of them King Henries Divorce lawfull but no ground of the Reformation Hall in Hen. 8. an 20. sol 180. b. an 21 f. 182. All the Cardinals of Rome opposed the Dispensation Hall An. 1. H. 8. Acworth emt Sand 1 2. c 13. 14 Hall An. 19. H 8. fâ—l 161. Sand de Schism p. 11. 12. Steph. Wint. de vera Obedientia apnd Gild. t. 1. p. 721. Ld. Cherb in Hen 8. An 1530. p. 303. Sufficere sant alioqui debuisset causae ipsius c. The Parliament not forced Idem p. 334. Anno. 1530. De vera Obedien tia Ibâ—dem p. 719. King Henry did not act against conscience c 3. s. 5. Ld. Cherb H. 8. an 1530. p. 305. Consilio divino Sand. de Sâ—hism p. 102. Lord Cherb fol. 398. P 128. Our separation from the Papacy was not for the faults of Popes but of the Papacy it self Luk. 13.7 whether Popes have done more good or hurt to England not materiall 2 King 18.4 Sect. 2. Conc. Turor Râ—sp ad Art 3. 48. It was lawfull to withdraw obedience from Papâ—ll Authority corrupted Princes the last Judges of the injuries done to their Subjâ—cts by Popes Bish. Epist. ad Reg. Iocob p. 11. Rom. 13.1 2. Prov. â— 15 Kingly Authority from God not Papal Sect. 3. The grounds of our sâ—paration An. 30. Sect. 4. The Popes new Articles of Faith a just cause of separation The deâ—â—ining of the Cup in the Sacrament a just cause of separation Odoardus Barlosa forma Celebrandi c. Papists right Heirs of the Donatists Optat. l. 2. Whether Protestants and Papists differ in Essentials Psal. 139.16 Sect. 5. Papists acknowledge possibility of our salvation as much as we of theirs Sect. 6. Our separation only from errors Math. 15.9 We arrogate to our selves no new Church c. Whether our Religion be the same with theirs or not we are no Schismaticks Quaest 14. de side Aâ—t 1. Justification by speciall faâ—â—h no Aâ—â—icle of our Church Probl. 22. Probl. 26. Our negatives no Articles of Faith Sect. 7. An implicite submission to the Catholick Church sufficient to salvation 〈…〉 Papists agree not what is their infallâ—ble proponent Aust. epist. 48. The name of Catholick from universall Communion not right beleefe c. 2 sect 6. More dangerous to exclude then to include others in our Communion The politick Supremacy of Princes in
make that proposition hereticall in it self which was not ever hereticall nor increase the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith either in number or substance What I said is undeniable true First in it self That is in its own nature without any reference to the authority of a Councel And necessary Articles of the Christian Faith that is absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians If the proposition were hereticall in it self then they that held it before the Councel were Hereticks as well as they who hold it after the Councel And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith without the actuall belief whereof Christians could never be saved This is sufficient to answer his objection But for the Readers satisfaction I adde moreover that the Romanists believe a generall Councel not only to be fallible without the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope whose priviledge and prerogative the most of them doe make the fole ground of the Churches infallibility but also without his concurrenee to have often erred actually But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope they make the determination of a generall Councel to be infallible On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope but the contrary After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave spoiled him of his pontificall Attire cut off his two Fingers and cast his body into Tybur it became an usuall thing with the following Popes either to enfringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors Neither was this act of Stephen an errour meerly in matter of fact but principally in matter of Faith that the Episcopall character is deleble We know no such confirmation neâ—dfull nor of any more force then the single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolicall Church And therefore we give the same priviledges to a Councell unconfirmed which they acknowledge to be fallible and to a Councell confirmed by the Pope We have no assurance that all generall Councells were and ever shall be so prudently mesnaged and their proceedings allwaies so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to beleeve under pain of damnation If R C. be not of my mind others of his own Church have been and are at this day When I forbear to cite because I presume it will not be denyed In summe I know no such virtuall Church as they fancy Antiquity never knew it I owe obedience at least of acquiescence to the representative Church and I resolve for ever to adhere to the best of my understanding to the united Communion of the whole essentiall Church which I beleeve to be so far infallable as is necessary for atteining that end for which Christ bestowed this priviledge that is salvation Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice or subterfuge to decline the authority of generall Councells I know none we need to fear And I doe freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly generall which he shall produce in this question As for occidentall Councels they are farre from being generall My other supposed error is that I say That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a generall Councell yet he ought to be silent and possess his soul in patience That is untill God give another opportunity and another Councell sit wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary This he saith is to binde men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in matter of Religion and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth and brings them within the compass of Saint Pauls Woe woe be unto me if I evangelise not Excellent Doctrine and may well serve for a part of the Rebells Catechism Because my Superior is not infallible if I cannot assent unto him must I needs oppose him publickly or otherwise be guilty of Hypocrisie and Dissimulation If he shall think fit in discretion to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth If he shall by his authority suspend a particular Pastor from the exercise of his pastorall Office must he needs preach in defiance of him or else be guilty of St. Pauls Woe Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gospell I desire him to consult with Bellarmine All Catholicks doe agree that if the Pope alone or the Pope with a particular Councell doe determine any controversie in Religion whether he can erre or whether he can not erre he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians May not I observe that duty to a generall Councell which all Roman Catholicks doe pay to the Pope or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience Certainly these things were not well weighed Where I say that by the Church of England in this question I understand that Church which was derived by lineall succession from Brittish English Scotish Bishops by mixt ordination as it was legally established in the daies of Edward the sixth and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution to let us see what an habit of alteration is he excepts against every word of this First against the lineall succession because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone This is an argument from the Staffe to the Corner I speak of a succession of holy Orders and he of a succession of Opinions And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom he will be found at a default here also Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we doe In the next place he excepts against mixt Ordination as partly Papisticall partly Protestanticall He erres the whole Heavens breadth from my meaning Before Austin preached to the Saxons there were in Britain ancient British Bishops and ancient Scotish Bishops who had their severall lines of succession to which Austin added English Bishops and so made a third succession These three were distinct at first but afterwards in tract of time they came to be mixed and united into one succession So as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British Scotish and English Bishops This is the great Bug-bear of mixt Ordination He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child He mistakes Kings are never Children nor Minors whilest they have good Tutors and good Councellers was he more a Child than King Iehoash and yet the Church was reformed during his minority This was no Childish Act thanks to Iehoiada a good Uncle and Protector He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edwards daies which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops whereof divers were cast in Prison for not