CHAP. I.
The Scope and summe of this Treatise.

1. NOthing hath been hitherto, Nothing more pro­bably ob­jected to the Church of England. then Schisme. or can hereafter be ob­jected to the Church of England, which to stran­gers unacquainted with the state of our affaires, or to such of our Na­tives as have onely looked upon the case superficially, hath more Colour of truth at first sight then that of Schisme, that we have withdrawn our obedience from the Vicar of Christ, or at least from our lawful Patriarch, and separated our selves from the Commu­nion of the Catholick Church. A grievous [Page 2] accusation I confesse, if it were true: for we acknowledge that there is no salvation to be expected ordinarily without the pale of the Church.

2. But when all things are Judiciously weighed in the Ballance of right reason, But no­thing more unjustly. when it shall appear that we never had any such forrein Patriarch for the first six hun­dred years and upwards; And that it was a grosse Violation of the Canons of the Ca­tholick Church to attempt after that time to obtrude any forrein Jurisdiction upon us, That before the Bishops of Rome ever exer­cised any Jurisdiction in Brittain, they had quitted their lawful Patriarchate wherewith they were invested by the authority of the Church, for an unlawful Monarchy preten­ded to belong unto them by the institution of Christ; That whatsoever the Popes of Rome gained upon us in after-ages without our own free consent, was meer tyranny and usurpation. That our Kings with their Synods and Parliaments had power to re­voke, retract and abrogate whatsoever they found by experience to become burthen­some and insupportable to their Subjects; That they did use in all ages, with the con­sent of the Church and Kingdom of En­gland, to limit and restrain the Exercise of Papal power, and to provide remedies against the daily incroachments of the Ro­man Court, so a Henry the Eighth at the reformation of the English Church, did [Page 3] but tread in the steps of his most renowned Ancestours, who flourished whilest Popery was in its Zenith; And pursued but that way which they had chalked out unto him, a way warranted by the practise of the most Christian Emperours of old, and frequented at this day by the greatest, or rather by all the Princes of the Roman Communion so often as they find occasion. When it shall be made evident, that the Bishops of Rome never injoyed any quiet or settled possession of that power which was after deservedly cast out of England, so as to beget a lawful prescription: And lastly, that we have not at all separated our selves from the Communion of the Catholick Church, nor of any part thereof, Roman or other, qua tales, as they are such, but only in their innovations, wherein they have se­parated themselves first from their Common Mother, and from the fellowship of their own Sisters; I say, when all this shall be cleared, and the Schisme is brought home and laid at the right door, then we may safely conclude, that by how much we should turn more Roman then we are, whilest things continue in the same condition; by so much we should render our selves lesse Catholique, and plunge our selves deeper into Schisme whilest we seek to avoid it.

3. For the clearer and fuller discussion and demonstration whereof, I shall observe [Page 4] this method in the Ensuing discourse.

First to state the question, The me­thod observed in this Discourse. and shew what is Schisme in the abstract, who are Schismatiques in the Concrete; and what we understand by the Church of England in this question.

Secondly, I will lay down six grounds or propositions, every one of which singly is sufficient to wipe away the stain and guilt of Schisme from the Church of England; how much more when they are all joyned together? My six grounds or Propositions are these: First, that Protestants were not the authors of the late great separation from Rome, but Roman Catholicks them­selves, such as in all other points were chief Advocates and Pillars of the Roman Church, and so many, that the names of all the known dissenters might be written in a little ring. Secondly, that in abandoning the Court of Rome, they did not make any new Law, but onely declare and restore the old Law of the Land to its former Vigour; And vindicate that liberty left them as an inheritance by their Ancestours, from the incroachments and usurpations of the Court of Rome. Thirdly, that the ancient Brittish and Scottish, or Irish Churches were ever­more exempted from the Patriarchal Juris­diction of the Roman Bishops, untill Rome thirsting after an universal unlawful Monar­chy, quitted their lawful Ecclesiastical pow­er; And so ought to continue free and [Page 5] exempted from all forrein Jurisdiction of any pretended Patriarch for evermore, ac­cording to the famous Canon of the Gene­ral Councel of Ephesus, which G [...]egory the Great reverenced as one of the four Gospels. Fourthly, that though the Authors of that Separation had not themselves been Roman Catholicks, and though the Acts or Statutes made for that end had not been meerly de­clarative, but also operative; And although Brittain had not been from the beginning both de jure and de facto exempted from Ro­man Jurisdiction, yet the King and Church of England had both sufficient authority and sufficient grounds to withdraw their obedience as they did. Fifthly, that all the Soveraign Princes and Republicks in Europe of the Roman Communion, whensoever they have occasion to reduce the Pope to reason, do either practise or plead for the same right, or both. Sixthly, that the Pa­pacy it self (qua t [...]lis) as it is now maintained by many, with universality of Jurisdiction, or rather sole Jurisdiction, Iure divino, with superiority above General Councels, with infallibility of Judgment, and temporal power over Princes, is become by its rigid censures, and new Creeds, and Exorbitant decrees, in a great part actually, and altoge­ther causally, guilty both of this and all the greater Schismes in Christendome.

3. Lastly, I will give a satisfactory answer to those objections, which those of the [Page 6] Roman Communion do bring against us to prove us Schismaticks.

CHAP. 2.
The stating of the question what is Schisme, who are Schismaticks, and what is signi­fied by the Church of England in this question.

EVery suddain pas­sionate heat, Every passionate heat not Schisme. or mis­understanding, or shaking of Charity amongst Christians, though it were even between the principal Pastors of the Church, is not presently Schisme; As that between Saint Paul and Barnabas in the Acts of the Apostles, who dare say that either of them were Schismaticks? or that between Saint Hierome and Ruffinus, who charged one another mutually with Heresie. Or that between Saint Chrysostome and Epiphanius, who refused to Joyn in prayers; Saint Chrysostome wishing that Epiphanius might never return home alive; And Epi­phanius wishing that Saint Chrysostome might not dye a Bishop: both which things by the just disposition of Almighty God, fell out according to the passionate and uncha­ritable desires of these holy persons, who had Christian Charity still radicated in their hearts, though the violent torrent of sudden [Page 7] passion did for the time bear down all other respects before it. These were but personal heats, which reflected not upon the publick body of the Church▪ to which they were all Ever ready to submit, and in which none of them did ever attempt to make a party, by gathering disciples to himself, such a passio­nate heat is aptly stiled by the Holy Ghost, [...], Acts 15. [...] 39. a paroxisme, or a sharp fit of a feverish distemper, which a little time, with­out any other application, will infallibly remedy.

Secondly, Ecclesiasti­cal quar­rels of long continuance not alwaies Schisme. every premeditated clashing of Bishops or Churches about points of do­ctrine or discipline long and resolutely main­tained, is not presently criminous Schisme, so long as they forbear to censure and con­demn one another, and to expel one ano­ther from their Communion, and are ready to submit to the determinations of a gene­ral Councel. Such were the contentions of the Roman and African Bishops about re­baptization and appeals. It were hard to say, that those two blessed Saints, Cyprian and Austine, and all those pious Prelates who joyned with them lived and dyed Schisma­ticks. With this general truth agrees that of Doctor Holden fully, Hen Holden Append. de Schis. Act. 1. pag 484. that when there is a mutual division of two parts or members of the mystical body of the Church, one from the other, yet both retein Communion with the Vniversal Church, which for the most part springs from some doubtful opinion, or lesse necessary part of [Page 8] divine worship; quamcun (que) partem amplexus fueris Schismaticus non audies, quippe quod universa ecclesia neutram damnarit, whatsoever part one take he is no Schismatick, because the universal Church hath condemned neither part. Whether he hold himself to this principle, or desert it, it is not my purpose here to discusse.

But this is much sounder doctrine then that of Mr. Knott, Infidelity unmasked, Sect. 176. pag. 591. that the parts of the Church cannot be divided one from another, ex­cept they be divided from the whole, because these things which are united to one third, are united also between themselves. Which errour he would seem to have sucked from Doctor Potter, Idem. pag. 516. whom he either would not, or at least did not understand, That whosoever professeth himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ, must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole. Of which he makes this use▪ That Protestants forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome, And yet do confesse it to be a member of the body of Christ, there­fore they forsake the Communion of the whole Church. The answer is easie, that whosoever doth separate himself from any part of the Catholique Church as it is a part of the Catholick Church, doth separate himself from every part of the Catholick Church, and consequently from the Univer­sal Church, which hath no existence but in its parts.

[Page 9] But if one part of the Universal Church do separate it self from another part, not absolutely, or in Essentials, but respectively in abuses and innovations, not as it is a part of the Universal Church, but only so far as it is corrupted and degenerated, it doth still retein a Communion, not onely with the Catholick Church and with all Orthodox Members of the Catholick Church, but even with that corrupted Church from which it is separated, except onely in corruptions. We may well inlarge the former ground, that if two particular Churches shall separate themselves one from another, And the one retein a communion with the Universal Church, and be ready to submit to the de­terminations thereof; And the other re­nounce the Communion of the Universal Church, and contumaciously despise the Jurisdiction and the decrees thereof; the former continues Catholick, and the later becomes Schismatical. To shew that this is our present condition with the Church of Rome, is in part the Scope of this Treatise. They have subjected Oecumenical Coun­cels, which are the Soveraign Tribunals of the Church, to the Jurisdiction of the Papal Court. And we are most ready in all our differences to stand to the judgment of the truly Catholick Church and its lawful Re­presentative, a free general Councel.

But we are not willing to have their vir­tual Church, that is the Court of Rome ob­truded [Page 10] upon us for the Catholick Church, nor a partial Synod of Italians for a free general Councel.

Thirdly, The Sepa­raters may be free from Schisme, and the other party guilty. there may be an actual and cri­minous separation of Churches which for­merly did joyn in one and the same Com­munion; And yet the Separaters be inno­cent, and the persons from whom the sepa­ration is made be nocent and guilty of Schisme, because they gave just cause of separation from them: It is not the separa­tion, but the cause that makes the Schisme. Saint Paul himself made such a separation among his disciples: Act. 19. 9. And Timothy is ex­presly commanded, 1 Tim. 6. 5. that if any man did teach otherwise, and consented not to wholsome words, even to the words of our Lord Iesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godlinesse, [...], withdraw thy self, stand aloof, or separate thy self from such persons. It is true, that they who first desert and forsake the Communion of their Chri­stian brethren, are Schismaticks; but there is a moral defection as well as local: It is no Schisme to forsake them, who have first themselves forsaken the common faith; wherein we have the confession of our ad­versaries, Infid. un­masked, Ch. 7. Sect. 112. pag. 534. They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions in faith, practice, Leiturgy, and use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been hereticks, by departing from the pure faith; and Schismaticks, by dividing themselves from the [Page 11] external communion of the true uncorrupted Church. It is no Schisme to separate from hereticks and Schismaticks in their heresie and Schisme. This is all the Crime which they can object to us. The Court of Rome would have obtruded upon us new articles of faith, we have rejected them; They introduced unlawful rites into the Leiturgies of the Church, and use of the Sacraments, we have reformed them for our selves: They went about to violate the just liberties and priviledges of our Church, we have vindi­cated them. And for so doing they have by their Censures and Bulls separated us and chased us from their communion; where lies the Schisme?

Fourthly, To with­draw obe­dience is not alwaies criminous Schisme. to withdraw obedience from a particular Church, or from a lawful Supe­riour, is not alwaies criminous Schisme. Particular Churches may sometimes erre, and sometimes clash with the universal Church. Patriarchs and other subordinate Superiours may erre, and sometimes abuse their authority, sometimes forfeit their au­thority, sometimes disclaim their authority, or usurp more authority then is due unto them by the Canons. They would perswade us, Idem. pag. 481. that obedience is to be yeelded to a Church determining errours in points not fundamental. But they confound obedience of acquiescence with obedience of conformity. They for­get willingly that we acknowledge not that they ever had any lawful authority over us; [Page 12] par in parem non habet potestatem. Equals have no Jurisdiction over their equals. The onely difficulty is, that this seems to make Inferiours Judges of their Superiours, the flock of their Pastour, the Clergy of their Bishop, the Bishop of his Metropolitan, the Metropolitan of his Patriarch; where­as in truth it onely gives them a Judgment of discretion, and makes them not to be Judges of their Superiours, but onely to be their own Judges, salvo moderamine inculpatae tutelae, to preserve themselves from sin or heresie obtruded upon them under the spe­cious pretences of obedience and Charity. This is not deficere, but prospicere; not to renounce due obedience to their lawful Su­periours, but to provide for their own safety.

Some things are so evident, that the Judgment of the Church or a Superiour is not needfull. Some things have been already judged and defined by the Church, and need no new determination.

If a Superiour presume to determine con­trary to the determination of the Church, it is not rebellion but loyalty to disobey him.

When Eunomius the Arrian was made Bishop, Theod. l. 4. c. 14. not one of his flock, rich or poor, young or old, man or woman, would commu­nicate with him in the publick service of God, but left him to officiate alone. When Nesto­rius did first publish his heresie in the Church [Page 13] in these words, Cyril. ep. 18. ad Coelesti­num. If any man call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, let him be accursed; the people made a noise, run out of the Church, and refused ever after to communi­cate with him. T [...]m. 1. Conc. lib. Rom. P [...]t. in Anast. Valentinian the Emperour shunned the communion of Sixtus the third. Many of the Roman Clergy withdrew them­selves from the communion of Anastasius their Bishop, because he had communicated with the Acatians. Rusticus and Sebastianus, two of the Popes chiefest Deacons, did not onely themselves forbear the Communion of Vigilius, but drew with them a good part of the Church of Rome, and other Occi­dental Churches.

It cannot be denied, Libel. ad mancit. apud Bar. to. 8. an. 590. nu. 39. but that among many examples of this Lyne, some are reprehen­sible, not because they did arrogate to themselves a liberty which they had not, but because they abused that liberty which they had, either by mistaking the matter of fact, or by presuming too much upon their own judgments.

To prevent which inconveniencies, [...]he eighth Synod decreed, not by way of cen­sure, but of caution, as a preservative from such abuses for the future, that no Clerk before diligent examination and Synodi­cal sentence, 8. Syn. c. 10. should separate himself from the communion of his proper Bishop, no Bishop of his Metropolitan, no Metropolitan of his Pa­triarch.

[Page 14] Then what is Schisme? Schimse signifies a criminous scissure, What is single Schisme. rent, or division in the Church, an Ecclesiastical Sedition, like to a mutiny in an Army, or [...] in a State. Therefore such ruptures are called by the Apostle indifferently [...], 1 Cor. 1. 10. or [...], 1 Cor. 3. 3 Schismes or seditious segregations of an aggregate body into two opposite parties: And there seems to me to be the same diffe­rence between heresie properly so called, and Schisme, which is between an inward sick­nesse, and an outward wound or ulcer. He­resie floweth from the corruption of faith within; Schisme is an exteriour breach, or a solution of continuity in the body Eccle­siastick: Consider then by what nerves and Ligaments the body of the Church is united and knit together, and by so many manner of ruptures it may be schismatically rent or divided asunder.

The Communion of the Christian Catho­lick Church is partly internal, Wherein internal Communi­on doth consist. partly exter­nal. The internal Communion consists principally in these things: To believe the same intire substance of saving necessary truth revealed by the Apostles, and to be ready implicitly in the preparation of the mind to embrace all other supernatural ve­rities when they shall be sufficiently propo­sed to them; To judge charitably one of another; To exclude none from the Ca­tholick Communion and hope of salvation, either Eastern, or Western, or Southern, or [Page 15] Northern Christians, which professe the ancient faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers, established in the first general Councels, and comprehended in the Apo­stolick Nicene and Athanasian Creed, To rejoyce at their well-doing, To sorrow for their sins, To condole with them in their sufferings, To pray for their constant per­severance in the true Christian Faith, for their reduction from all their respective errours, and their re-union to the Church in case they be divided from it, that we may be all one sheepfold under that one great Shepherd and Bishop of our Soules. And lastly, to hold an actual external Commu­nion with them in Votis, in our desires, and to endeavour it by all those means which are in our power. This internal Communion is of absolute necessity among all Catho­licks.

External Communion consists first in the same Creeds or Symbols, Wherein External Commu­nion doth consist. or Confessions of Faith, which are the ancient badges or cog­nisances of Christianity. Secondly, in the participation of the same Sacraments. Third­ly, in the same external worship and frequent use of the same divine offices or Leiturgies, or Forms of serving God. Fourthly, in the use of the same publick Rites and Ceremo­nies. Fifthly, in giving communicatory Letters from one Church or one person to another. And lastly, in admission of the same discipline, and subjection to the same [Page 16] supream Ecclesiastical authority, that is, Episcopacy, or a general Councel; for as single Bishops are the heads of particular Churches, so Episcopacy, that is, a general Councel, or Oecumenical Assembly of Bi­shops, is the head of the universal Church.

Internal communion is due alwaies from all Christians to all Christians, even to those with whom we cannot communicate exter­nally in many things, whether credenda, or agenda, External Commu­nion may be suspen­ded. opinions or practises. But external actual communion may sometimes be suspen­ded more or lesse by the just censures of the Church, clave non errante. As in the primitive times some were excluded a coetu participan­tium, Only from the use of the Sacraments; others moreover, a coetu procumbentium, both from Sacraments and Prayers; others also, a coetu audientium, from Sacraments, Prayers, and Sermons: and lastly, some, a coetu fi­delium, from the society of Christians. And as external communion may be suspended, so likewise it may sometimes be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or per­sons from their neighbour Churches or Christians in their innovations and errours. And with­drawn. Especially when they go about to obtrude new fancies upon others for fundamental truths and old Articles of faith. Christian charity is not blind so as not to distinguish the integral and essential parts of the body, from superfluous wens and excrescences. The Canons do not oblige Christians to the ar­bitrary [Page 17] dictates of a Patriarch, or to suck in all his errours, like those servile flatterers of Dionysius the Sicilian Tyrant, who licked up his very spettle, and protested it was more sweet then Nectar.

Neither is there the like degree of obligati­on to an exact Communion in all Externals. There is not the like neces­sity of com­municating in all Ex­ternals. There is not so great conformity to be ex­pected in Ceremonies, as in the Essentials of Sacraments, (the Queens daughter was array­ed in a garment wrought about, with divers colours) nor in all Sacraments improperly and largely so called by some persons at some times, as in Baptisme and the holy Eu­charist, which by the consent of all parties are more general, more necessary, more principal Sacraments. Neither is so exact an harmony and agreement necessary in all the explications of articles of faith, as in the Articles themselves; nor in superstructions, as in fundamentals, nor in Scholastical opi­nions, as in catechetical grounds. Nor so strict and perpetual an adherence required to a particular Church, as to the Universal Church; nor to an Ecclesiastical constitu­tion, as to a divine Ordinance, or Apostoli­cal tradition. Humane priviledges may be lost by disuse, or by abuse. And that which was advisedly established by humane autho­rity, may by the same authority upon suffi­cient grounds and mature deliberation be more advisedly abrogated. As the limits and distinctions of Provinces and Patriar­chates [Page 18] were at first introduced to comply with the civil government, according to the distribution of the Provinces of the Roman Empire, for the preservation of peace and unity, and for the ease and benefit of Chri­stians, so they have been often, and may now be changed by Soveraign and Synodical authority, according to the change of the Empire, for the peace and benefit of Chri­stendom.

Neither the rules of prudence, Christian Communi­on [...]mplies not unity in all opi­nions. nor the Lawes of Piety, do oblige particular Churches or Christians to communicate in all opinions and practises with those particular Churches or Christians with whom they hold Catho­lick communion. The Roman and African Churches held good communion one with another, whilest they differed both in judg­ment and practise about rebaptization. Can­not one hold communion with the Fathers that were Chiliasts, except he turn Mille­nary?

The British Churches were never judged Schismatical, because they differed from the rest of the West about the observation of Easter. We see that all the famous and principal Churches of the Christian World, Graecian, Roman, Protestant, Armenian, Abis­sene, have their peculiar differences one with another, and each of them among them­selves. And though I am far from belie­ving, that when L [...]g [...]machies are taken away, their real dissensions are half so nu­merous, [Page 19] or their errous half so [...]oul, as they are painted out by their adversaries; (aemulation was never equal Judge,) And though I hope Christ will say, Come ye bles­sed, to many, whom fiery Zelots are ready to turn away with Go ye cursed, yet to hold communion with them all in all things, is neither lawful nor possible.

Yea, if any particular Patriarch, Prelate, Church, or Churches, how eminent soever, shall endeavour to obtrude their own singu­larities upon others for Catholique verities, or shall injoyn sinful duties to their Subjects, or shall violate the undoubted priviledges of their inferiours, contrary to the Canons of the Fathers; It is very lawful for their own Subjects to disobey them, and for strangers to separate from them. And if either the one or the other have been drawn to partake of their errours, upon pretence of obedience or of Catholique communion, they may without the guilt of Schisme, nay they ought to reform themselves, so as it be done by lawfull authority, upon good grounds, with due moderation, without ex­cesse, or the violation of Charity: And so as the separation from them be not total, but onely in their errours and innovations; nor perpetual, but onely during their distem­pers. As a man might leave his fathers, or his brothers house being infected with the Plague, with a purpose to return thither again so soon as it was cleansed. This is no [Page 20] more then what Gerson hath taught us in sundry places: Reg. mor. tit. p [...]aec. decal. lib. de A. P. Cons. 14. It is lawful by the Law of nature to resist the injury and violence of a Pope. And if any one should convert his Papal dignity to be an instrument of wickednesse to the destru­ction of any part of the Church in temporalities, or spiritualities; And if there appeares no other remedy but by withdrawing ones self from the obedience of such a raging power, untill the Church or a Councel shall provide otherwise, it is lawful. [...]e unit. eccl. cons. 10. He addes further, That it is lawful to sleight his sentences, yea to tear them in pieces, and throw them at his head.

Bellarmine in effect saith as much; Lib. 2. de Rom. pont. c. 29. As it is lawful to resist the Pope is he should invade our bodies; So it is lawful to resist him invading of soules, or troubling the Common-Wealth: And much more if he should endeavour to destroy the Church; I say it is lawful to resist him by not doing that which he commands, and by hin­dering him from putting his will in execution. We ask no more. The Pope invaded our soules by exacting new Oaths, and obtruding new Articles of faith. He troubled the Common-Wealth with his extorsions and usurpations: He destroyed the Church by his provisions, reservations, exemptions, &c. we did not judge him, or punish him, or de­pose him, or exercise any jurisdiction over him, but onely defended our selves, by guarding his blowes, and repelling his in­juries.

I may not here forget Saint Ignatius the [Page 21] Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Pope Iohn the eighth excommunicated for detain­ing the Jurisdiction of Bulgaria from the See of Rome: But he disobeyed the Popes cen­sures, as did also his Successours, and yet was reputed a Saint after his death; whom Baro­nius excuseth in this manner, Bar tom. 10. an. 878. Neque est ut qui ob litem hanc, &c. Let no man think that for his controversie Ignatius was either disaffe­cted to the Roman See or ingrateful, seeing he did but defend the rights of his own Church, to which he was bound by oath under pain of eternal dam­nation. If it be not only lawful but necessary (in the Judgment of Baronius) yea necessary under the pain of damnation, for every Bishop to defend the rights of his particular See, against the incroachments and usurpa­tions of the Roman Bishop, and to contemn his censures in that case as invalid; How much more is it lawful, yea necessary for all the Bishops in the world to maintain the right of their whole order, and of Episco­pacy it self, against the oppressions of the Court of Rome, which would swallow up, or rather hath swallowed up all original Juris­diction, and the whole power of the Keyes. From this Doctrine Doctour Holden doth not dissent, Append. de Schismat. Art. 4. p. 516. Non tamen is ergo sum, &c. Yet I am not he who dare affirm, that diseases and bad manners and humours may not sometimes be mingled in any Society or body whatsoever; yea I confesse that such kinds of faults are sometimes to be plucked up by the roots, and the over-luxu­rious [Page 22] branches to be pruned away with the hook. It is true, he would not have this reforma­tion in Essential Articles, (we offered not to to [...]ch them) nor without the consent of lawful Superiours: we had the free and de­liberate consent of all our Superiours both Civil and Ecclesiastical. A little after he addes, I confesse also, that particular and as it were private abuses, which have onely infected some certain person [...] or Church, whether Episco­pal or Archiepiscopal, or National, may be taken away by the care and diligence of that particular Congregation: we attempted no more.

We see then what meer Schisme is, The so [...] of Schisme. a cul­pable rupture or breach of the Catholick communion; A loosing of the band of peace, a violation of Christian charity, a dissolving of the unity and continuity of the Church; And how this crime may be com­mitted inwardly by temerarious and uncha­ritable judgment; when a man thinks thus with himself, Stand from me, for I am holier thou thou. By lack of a true Christian Sym­pathy or fellow-feeling of the wants and suf­ferings of our Christian brethren: By not wish [...]ng and desiring the peace of Christen­dome, and the reunion of the Catholique Church. By not contributing our prayers and endeavou [...]s for the speedy knitting to­gether and consolidating of that broken bone. And outwardly by rejecting the true badges and cognisances of Christians, that [Page 23] is, the ancient Creeds. By separating a mans self without sufficient ground from other Christians in the participation of the same Sacraments, or in the use of the same divine Offices, and Leiturgies of the Church, and publick worship and service of Almigh­ty God, or of the same common rites and ceremonies. By refusing to give communi­catory Letters to Catholique Orthodox Christians. By not admitting the same discipline, and by denying or withdrawing our obedience unlawfully from lawful Supe­riours, whether it be the Church universal, or particular, essential or representative, or any single Superiour, either of divine or humane institution. By separating of them­selves from the communion of the Catholick Church, as the Novatians; or by restraining the Catholique Church unto themselves, as the Donatists of old, and the Romanists at this day.

What the Catholique Church signifies, What the Catholick Church signifies. was sufficiently debated between the Catho­lique Bishops, and the Schismatical Dona­ti [...]ts at the Colloquie of Carthage; Neither the Church of Rome in Europe, nor the Church of Cartenna in Afrique, with the several Churches of their respective commu­nions, but the whole Church of Christ spread abroad throughout the whole world. Collat. Carth. Col. 3. Afro­rum Christianorum catholicorum haec vox est, &c. This is the voyce of the African catholick Christians, we are joyned in communion with [Page 24] the whole Christian world; This is the Church which we have chosen to be maintained, &c.

Now the Catholique Church being totum homogeneum, Each mem­ber of the Catholick Church is Catholick inclusively. every particular Church, and every particular person of this Catholique communion doth participate of the same name inclusively, so as to be justly called Catholique Churches, and Catholick Chri­stians: But not exclusively, to the preju­dice or shutting out of other Churches, or other persons. As the King of Spain stiles himself, and is stiled by others the Catholick King, not as if he were an universal Monarch, or that there were no other Soveraign Prin­ces in the world but himself; So the Church of Rome is called a Catholick Church; and the Bishop of Rome a Catholique Bishop: And yet other Churches and other Bishops may be as Catholick, and more Catholick then they. I like the name of Catholick well, but the addition of Roman is in truth a diminution.

Schisme for the most part is changeable, Schisme is change­able. and varies its Symptomes as the Chamaelion colours. As it was said of the Schisme of the Donatists, that the passion of a disordered woman brought it forth, Ambition nourished it, and covetousnesse confirmed it. And therefore it is as hard a task to shape a coat for Schis­maticks, as for the Moon, which changeth its shape every day. The reason is, because having once deserted the Catholick commu­nion, they find no beaten path to walk in [Page 25] but are like men running down a steep hill that cannot stay themselves, or like sick persons that tosse and turn themselves con­tinually from one side of their bed to the other, searching for that repose which they do not find: Hence it comes to passe, that Schisme is very rarely found for any long space of time without some mixture of heretical pravity, And for the most part complica­ted with heretical pravity, it being the use of Schis­maticks to broach some new doctrine for the better justification of their separation from the Church. Heretical errours in point of faith do easily produce a Schisme and Separation of Christians one from another in the use of the Sacraments, and in the publick service of God; As the Arrian he­resie produced a different doxology in the Church, The Orthodox Christian saying. Glo [...] be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the holy Ghost; And the heretical Arrian, Glory be to the Father by the Son, in the Spirit. So of later times, the opinions of the lawful­nesse of detaining the cup from the Laity, and of the necessity of adoring the Sacra­ment, have by consequence excluded the Protestants from the participation of the Eucharist in the Roman Church. Thus Heresie doth naturally destroy unity and uniformity: That is one Symptome of Schisme.

But it destroyes order also, and the due subordination of a flock to their lawful Pa­stour, nothing being more common with [Page 26] hereticks, then to contemne their old guides, and to choose to themselves new teachers of their own factions, and so erect an altar against an altar in the Church: That is another principal branch of Schisme. So a different faith commonly produceth a dif­ferent discipline, and different formes of worship.

A man may render himself guilty of he­retical pravity four wayes. Four waies to become heretical. First, by dis­believing any fundamental article of faith, or necessary part of saving truth, in that sense in which it was evermore received and believed by the universal Church. Second­ly, by believing any superstitious errours or additions which do virtually by necessary and evident consequence subvert the faith, and overthrow a fundamental truth. Third­ly, by maintaining lesser errours obstinately after sufficient conviction. But because that consequence which seems clear and necessary to one man, may seem weak and obscure to another; And because we can­not penetrate into the hearts of men, to judg whether they be obstinate, or do implicitely and in the preparation of their minds believe the truth, it is good to be sparing and re­served in censuring hereticks for obstinacy. Fourthly, by maintaining lesser errours with frowardnesse and opposition to lawfull de­terminations. Though it be not in the power of any Councel, or of all the Coun­cels in the world, to make that truth funda­mental [Page 27] which was not fundamental, or to make that proposition heretical in it self, which was not heretical ever from the daies of the Apostles; Or to increase the neces­sary Articles of the Christian faith, either in number or substance; yet when inferiour questions not fundamental are once defined by a lawful general Councel, All Christians, though they cannot assent in their judg­ments, are obliged to passive obedience, to possesse their soules in patience. And they who shall oppose the authority, and disturb the peace of the Church, deserve to be punished as hereticks.

To summe up all that hath been said; Who are Catho­liques. Whosoever doth preserve his obedience intire to the universal Church, and its repre­sentative a General Councel, and to all his Superiours in their due order, so far as by Law he is obliged, who holds an internal communion with all Christians, and an ex­ternal communion so far as he can with a good conscience, who approves no refor­mation but that which is made by lawfull authority, upon sufficient grounds, with due moderation, who derives his christianity by the uninterrupted line of Apostolical Succession, who contents himself with his proper place in the Ecclesiastical body, who disbelieves nothing contained in holy Scri­pture; and if he hold any errours unwittingly and unwillingly, doth implicitely renounce them by his fuller and more firm adherence [Page 28] to that infallible rule, who believeth and practiseth all those credenda and agenda, which the universal Church spread over the face of the earth doth unanimously believe and practise as necessary to salvation, with­out condemning or censuring others of diffe­rent Judgement from himself in inferiour questions, without obtruding his own opi­nions upon others as Articles of faith, who is implicitely prepared to believe and do all other speculative and practical truths, when they shall be revealed to him: And in summe, Aug. l. 2. cont. cas [...]. qui sententiam diversae opinionis vinculo non praeponit unit [...]tis, that prefers not a sub­tlety or an imaginary truth before the bond of peace; He may securely say, My name is Christian, my sirname is Catho­lique.

From hence it appeareth plainly, Who are Schisma­ [...]cks. by the rule of contraries, who are Schismatiques; whosoever doth uncharitably make ruptures in the mystical body of Christ, or sets up altar against altar in his Church, or with­drawes his obedience from the Catholique Church, or its representative a General Councel, or from any lawful Superiours, without just grounds; whosoever doth limit the Catholique Church unto his own sect, excluding all the rest of the Christian world, by new doctrines, or erroneous censures, or tyrannical impositions; whosoever holds not internall Communion with all Chri­stians, and externall also, so far as they [Page 29] continue in a Catholique constitution; whosoever not contenting himself with his due place in the Church, doth attempt to usurp an higher place, to the disorder and disturbance of the whole body; whosoever takes upon him to reform without just authority, and good grounds. And lastly, whosoever doth wilfully break the line of Apostolical Succession, which is the [...]very nerves and sinewes of Ecclesiastical unity and communion, both with the present Church, and with the Catholique Sym­bolical Church of all successive ages; He is a Schismatick (qua talis,) whether he be guilty of heretical pravity or not.

Now having seen who are Schismaticks, for clearing the state of the Question, Whether the Church of England be Schis­matical or not, it remaineth to shew in a word, what we understand by the Church of England.

First, What is understood by the Church of England. we understand not the English Na­tion alone, but the English Dominion, in­cluding the Brittish, and Scottish or Irish Christians; for Ireland was the right Scotia major, and that which is now called Scotland, was then inhabited by Brittish and Irish, under the names of Picts and Scots.

Secondly, though I make not the least doubt in the world, but that the Church of England before the reformation, and the Church of England after the reformation, are as much the same Church, as a garden [Page 28] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page 30] before it is weeded, and after it is weeded, is the same garden; or a vine, before it be pru­ned, and after it is pruned and freed from the Luxuriant branches, is one and the same vine: yet because the Roman Catholiques do not object Schisme to the Popish Church of England, but to the reformed Church, Therefore in this question, by the Church of England, we understand that Church which was derived by lineal succession from the Brittish, English, and Scottish Bishops, by mixt ordination▪ as it was legally established in the daies of King Edward the sixth, and flourished in the raigns of Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, and King Charles of blessed memory, and now groanes under the heavy yoke of persecution, whether this Church be Schismatical by reason of its secession and separation from the Church of Rome, and the supposed withdrawing of its obedi­ence from the Patriarchal Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop? As for other aspersions of Schisme, of lesser moment, we shall me [...] with them in our answers to their Objecti­ons.

CHAP. III.
That the separation from Rome was not made by Protestants, but by Roman Catholicks themselves.

THis being the state of the Question, Roman Catholicks first authors of the separation from Rome. I proceed to examine the first ground or proposition: That the English Protestants were not the first authors of the separation, but princi­pall Roman Catholiques, great Advocates in their dayes, and Pillars of the Roman Church. Whether the Act or Statute of Separation were operative or declarative, creating new right, or manifesting, or re­storing old right, whether the power of the Roman Court in England was just or usur­ped, absolute and immutable, or conditional and changeable; whether the possession thereof was certain and settled, or contro­verted and unquiet, (though no man throughly versed in our Lawes and Histo­ries can reasonably doubt of these things,) This is undeniably true, that the secession and substraction of obedience was not made by our reformers, or by any of their friends or favourers, but by their capital Enemies and persecutors, by Zelots of the Roman Religion.

[Page 32] And this was not done secretly in a corner, but openly in the sight of the Sun, disputed publickly, and determined before-hand, in both our Universities, which after long de­liberation, Act. and Mon p. 965. R [...]gist. epist. Vni. Oxon. ep. 210. and much disputation, done with all diligence, zeal and conscience, made this final resolution and profession, Tandem in hanc sententiam unanimiter convenimus, ac concordes fuimus, videlicet Romanum Episco­pum majorem aliquam Iurisdictionem non ha­bere sibi à deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae, quam alium quemvis externum Episcopum. That the Roman Bishop had no greater Iurisdiction within the Kingdome of England confe [...]red upon him by God in holy Scri­pture, then any other forrein Bishop. After this the same was voted and decreed in our National Synods; Sac. Syn. an. 1530. et an. 1532. and lastly, after all this, received and established in full Parliament, by the free consent of all the Orders of the Kingdom, with the concurrence and appro­bation of four and twenty Bishops, and nine and twenty Abbats, then and there present. To passe by many other Statutes, take the very words of one of the main Acts it self, That England is an Empire, 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. Romanists first gave the King the title of Head of the Church. and that the King as Head of the body politick consisting of the spi­rituality and temporalty, hath plenary power to render final Iustice for all matters, &c. First, England is, that is, originally, not shall be by vertue of this Act; what is it? an Empire. If it be an Empire, then the Soveraignes thereof have the same priviledges and pre­rogatives [Page 33] within their own Dominions, which the old Emperours had in theirs. If the King be head of the body politick consisting of the spi [...]ituality and temporalty, then in England the King is the political head of the Clergy, as well as of the Laity. So he ought to be, and not he onely, but all the Soveraign Princes throughout the World, by the very Law of Nature.

What becomes now of that grand excep­tion against Protestants, for making their King the Head or Soveraign Governour (for these two are convertible terms) of the English Church or Clergy? A title first introduced by Roman Catholicks, and since waved and laid aside by Protestants, not so much for any malignity that was in it, as for the ill sounds sake, because it seemed to in­trench too much upon the just right of our Saviour, and being subject to be misunder­stood, gave offence to many well affected Christians. And what doth this Law say more then a great Cardinal said not long af­ter? One that was as near the Papacy as any that ever mist it, and was thought to merit the Papacy as well as any that had it in his daies. I mean Cardinal Pool in his Book de concilio, Hoc munus Imperatoribus Christi fidem professis Deus ipse Pater assigna­vit, Resp. ad quaest. 74. at Christi filii dei vica [...]ias partes gerant, God the Father hath assigned this office to Chri­stian Emperours, that they should act the part of Christ the Son of God, (in General Councels.) [Page 34] And yet more fully in his answer to the next question, R [...]sp. ad qu. 75. Pontifex Romanus ut caput sacer­dotale Vicarias Christi veri capitis partes gerit, at Caesar ut caput regale, &c. The Pope as a Priestly head doth execute the Office of Christ the true Head; but we may also truly say, that the Emperour doth execute the office of Christ as a Kingly Head. And so he concludeth; Christ said of himself, All power is given me both in heaven and earth: In utra (que) ergo po­testate, &c. Therefore we cannot doubt but Christ hath his Deputies for both these powers; The Pope in the Church, the Emperour in the Common-Wealth. Thus writes the Popes own Legate to his Brother Legates in the Tridentine Councel, when he desired to favour his Master as much as he could.

But I proceed to our Statute; The King of England hath, that is, already in present, by the fundamental constitution of the Monar­chy; not shall have from henceforth, plenary power, without the License or help or con­currence of any forrain Prelate or Potentate; ple [...]ary, not solitary: To render final Iustice, that is, to receive the last appeales of his own Subjects, without fear of any review from Rome, or at Rome, for all matters Ec­clesiastical and temporal; Ecclesiastical by his Bishops, Temporal by his Judges. There is great difference between a Kings admini­string Justice in Ecclesiastical causes by him­self, and by his Bishops. Listen to the Canon of the Milevitan Councel: Conc. Mil. 2. It hath [Page 35] pleased the Synod, that what Bishop soever shall request of the Emperour the cognisance of publick judgment (in some cases) he be deprived of his honour. But if he petition to the Emperour fo [...] Episcopal judgment, (that is, to make Bishops his Deputies or Commissioners to hear it) it should [...]not prejudice him. They forbid a Bishop of his own accord, in these daies, and in some cases to make his first addresse for Justice to a secular Magistrate; But they do not forbid him to appear before a secular Magistrate being cited; And they allow him in all cases though of pure Ecclesiastical cognisance, to seek to a Soveraign Prince for an equal indifferent hearing by Bishops delegated and authorised by him.

The testimony of this Statute is so clear and authentick in it self, that it need not be corroborated with any other acts of the same kind. Yet three things are urged against it. First, that Henry the Eighth at this time was a favourer of the Protestants. Secondly, that he cared not for Religion, but looked onely to the satisfaction of his own humours and lusts. Thirdly, that to withhold due obedience, is as Schismatical as to withdraw it; And that the reformed Church of England may be innocent of the one, and yet guilty and accessary to the other.

To the first exception I reply, Henry the 8 ^th no friend to the Protestants. That Henry the eighth was so far both then and long after from being a friend or favourer of the [Page 36] Protestants, that he was a most bitter perse­cutor of them. After this the Pope himself, (though he was not well pleased to lose so sweet a morsel as England was) so well ap­proved of Henry the Eighth's rigorous pro­ceedings against the Protestants, that he proposed him to the Emperour as a pattern for his imitation. Hist. Conc. Trid. Insomuch as some stran­gers in those daies coming into England, have admired to see one suffer for denying the Popes Supremacy, and another for being a Protestant at the same time. So though they looked divers waies, yet like Samp­sons Foxes each had his firebrand at his taile.

But to clear this point home, there needs no more but to view the order of the Sta­tutes made concerning Religion and Ec­clesiastical Jurisdiction in the raign of that King.

The Act for no person to be cited out of his own Diocesse, 23. H. 8. except in certain cases. The Act prohibiting all appeales out of England to the Court of Rome. 24. H. 8. The Act for the submission of the Clergy to the King. 25. H. 8. The Act for payment of first fruits to the Crown: 26. H. 8. An Act for Exoneration from all exactions of the Court of Rome. The Act declaring the King to be Supream Head of the Church of England: An Act against Popish Bulls, Faculties, and Di­spensations: And the Act for utterly ex­tinguishing the usurped authority of the [Page 37] Roman Bishop were all▪ or the most of them enacted before the eight and twentieth year of Henry the Eighth. 28. H. 8. And if my notes fail me not; (for we are chased from our books) they were all received and establish­ed in Ireland the very same year, the Lord Gray being then Lord Deputy of Ireland. All this while there were no thoughts of any reformation; All this while the Protestants found little grace from King Henry; nor indeed throughout his whole raign, ordi­narily.

As for the suppression of Monasteries in his time, The Au­thors op [...] ­nion of Monaste­ries. I shall deal clearly, and declare what I conceive to be the judgment of mo­derate English Protestants concerning that Act. First, we feare that covetous­nesse had a great oare in the boat, and that sundry of the principal Actors had a great­er aime at the goods of the Church, then at the good of the Church: Or otherwise why did they not (as they pretended and gave out) preserve the spoiles of the cloi­sters for publick and charitable uses, as the foundation of Hospitalls, and freeing the common Wealth from a great part of its necessary charges? Supplica­tion of beggars. why did they not re­store the appropriated, (or as we call them truly impropriated tythes) to the Incum­bents and lawful owners, who had actuall cure of souls? from whom they had been un­justly withheld, especially considering that in some parishes the poore vicars stipend [Page 38] was not sufficient to maintain a good Plow-man. The Monks pretended that they had able members to discharge the cure of souls, and what difference whether the Incum­bent were a single person, or an aggregated body? But what meer Lay-men could pre­tend is beyond my understanding.

Secondly, we examine not whether the abuses which were then brought to light were true or feined; but this we believe, that foundations which were good in their origi­nal institution ought not to be destroy­ed for accessary abuses; or for the faults of particular persons. So we should neither leave a Sun in heaven, for that hath been adored by Pagans; nor a spark of fire, or any eminent creature, how beneficial soe­ver upon earth, for they have all been abu­sed. Therefore Licurgus is justly con­demned, because out of an hatred to drun­kenness he cut down all the Vines in Sparta; whereas he should have brought the foun­taines of water nearer.

Thirdly, when the Clergy in a Kingdome are really, (and not upon the feined pre­tenses of Sacrilegious persons) grown to that excessive Grandeur, that they quite overballance the Laity, and leave the com­mon wealth, neither sufficient men nor suf­ficient means to maintain it self, it is law­ful by prudent lawes to restrain their fur­ther growth, as our Ancestors and all the nations of Europe have done by prohi­biting [Page 39] new foundations of Religious hous­es, and the alienation of Lands to the Church, without special License; As we shall see hereafter. And if the excesse be so exorbitant, that it is absolutely and evi­dently destructive to the constitution of the common wealth, it is lawfull (upon some conditions and cautions not necessary to be here inserted) to prune the superfluous branches and to reduce them to a right temper and aequilibrium, for the preservation and well-being of the whole body Politick. It hath been alwayes held lawful in some cases to alienate some things, that had for­merly been given to the Church, as for the redemption of Christian Captives, for the sustenance of poor Christians, who are li­ving Temples, in the daies of famine, and for preservation of the Church it self from de­molition; But Eradication, to pluck up good institutions root and branch, is not reformation which we professe, but de­struction.

To conclude this digression. So as Mo­nasteries were moderated in their number, and in their revenues; So as the Monks were restrained from medling between the Pastor and his flock, that is the Bark and the Tree, as it was of old, Monachus in oppido, Piscis in arido, a Monk in a great town was thought like a little fish upon dry land. So as the abler sort, who are not taken up with higher studies or weightier imploy­ments, [Page 40] were inured to bestow their spare howers from their devotions in some profi­table labour for the publick good, that idle­nesse might be stripped of the cloak of con­templative devotion. So as the vow of per­petuall coelibate were reduced to the forme of our English Vniversities, so long a fel­low, so long unmarried, or of the Canonesses & Biggins, on the other side the Seas, which are no longer restrained from wed­lock then they retain their places or habits; So as their blind obedience were more inlightened, and secured by some certain rules and bounds. So as their mock pover­ty (for what is it else to professe want and swim in abundance,) were changed into a competent maintenance; And lastly, So as all opinion of satisfaction and supereroga­tion were removed, I do not see why mona­steries might not agree well enough with reformed devotion.

So then Henry the eighth at the time of his secession from Rome, Henry the 8 ^th. no friend to Prote­stants▪ 31. Hen. 8. and long after, even so long as he lived, was neither friend nor favourer of the ensuing reformation, nor ordinarily of Protestants in their persons. As may yet more manifestly appear by that cruel statute of the Six Articles; which he made after all this in the one and thir­tieth year of his raign as a trap to catch the Lives of the poore Protestants. A Law both writ in blood, and executed in blood.

[Page 41] But suppose that Henry the eighth had been a friend to Protestants, Much lesse those who joyned with him in the separation from Rome. what shall we say to all the Orders of the Kingdom? what shall we say to the Synods, to the Universi­ties, to the four and twenty Bishops, and nine and twenty Abbats, who consented to this Act? were all these Schismaticks? were Heath, Bonner, Tonstall, Gardiner, Stokesley, Thurleby, &c. all Schismaticks? If they were, then Schismaticks were the greatest opposers of the reformation, the greatest enemies of the Protestants, and the greatest pillars and upholders of the Roman religion. These were they that granted the Suprema­cy to King Henry the eighth, Archbishop Warham told him it was his right to have it before the Pope. Act. & Mon. an. 1510. Conc. Tonst. et Long­lands. These were they that preached up the Supremacy of the King at S. Paul's Crosse, and defended his Supre­macy in printed books. These consented to the Acts of Parliament for his Suprema­cy, and the extinguishing of the power of the Roman Bishop in England. These were they who helped to make the oath of Supre­macy, and took it themselves, and all others of any note throughout England, except onely Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas Moor, Hist. aliquot mart. et edit. an. 1550. Apol. sac. Reg. pro jur. fidel. p. 125. who were in prison before it was enacted for opposing the Kings Mar­riage, and the succession of his Children to the Crown, after it was ordained in Parlia­ment. And wise men have thought that the former had taken it, if he had not been re­tarded [Page 42] by the expectation of a Cardinals hatt, which was come as far as Calice.

Or rather what shall we say to the whole body of the Kingdome, England unanimous in casting out the Pope. if we may believe the testimony of Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, a learned person of very near relation to King Henry, and in all other things a great Zelot of the Roman Catho­lick party, in his book of true obedience, published with a Preface to it made by Bi­shop Bonner. de ver [...] obed. Thus he, No forrein Bishop hath authority among us; All sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most stedfast consent, that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to do with Rome. A full confession of an able adversary, to which I see not what can be excepted, un­lesse it be said of him, as it was of Aeneas Syl­vius, Stephanus probavit, Wintoniensis negavit, Doctour Gardiner approved it, but the Bi­shop of Winchester retracted it. Admit it were so, as it was indeed, what is that to the stedfast unanimous consent of the whole Kingdome? which appears not onely from hence, but from Tonstal's Epistle to Cardi­nal Pool, and Bekenshaws Commentary of the Soveraign and absolute power of Kings; C [...]ted by King Iames in his tri­plici modo triplex cu­n [...]us print. an. 1609. p. 125. and Ireland. As likewise of the difference between Kingly and Ecclesiastical power. And lastly and princi­pally, by a book set forth by the English Convocation, called, The Institution of a Christian man. And to shew yet further, that Ireland was unanimo [...] [...]erein with England, [Page 43] we find in the three and thirtieth year of Henry the eighth, which was before all thoughts of reformation, not the Irish only, as the O Neales, Councel book of Ireland 32, 33, 34. of Henry 8 ^th. O Relies, O Birnes, O Carols, &c. but also the English Families, as the Desmonds, Barries, R [...]ches, Bourks, whose po­sterities do still continue Zealous Roma­nists, did make their submissions by Inden­ture to Sir Anthony Sellenger, then chief Governour of that Kingdom, wherein they acknowledged King Henry to be their Soveraign Lord, and confessed the Kings Supremacy in all causes, and utterly renounced the Iurisdiction of the Pope. So the Bishop of Winchester might well say, that there was an Universal and stedfast consent in the separation from Rome.

The second exception weighes so little, The preten­ded Crimes of Hen. 8. no blemish to the Re­formation. that it scarce deserveth an Answer. Admit­ting, but not granting, that any or all the calumnies of that party against Henry the eighth were true, whereof divers by their impossibility and by the contradiction of their authors, do carry their own condemna­tion written in their foreheads; And al­though Henry the eighth had been our Re­former, as he was not, yet all this would signifie nothing as to this present question. God doth often good works by ill agents. Iehu's heart was not upright towards the Lord, yet God used him as an Instrument to re­form his Church, and to punish the worship­pers of Baal. We have heard of late of an [Page 44] aggregative treason, not known before in the world, But never untill now of an aggre­gative Schisme. The addition of twenty sins of another nature cannot make that to be Schisme which is not Schisme in it self. We are sorry for his sins under a condition, that is, in case they were true, which for part of them we have no great Reason to believe; But we are absolutely without condition glad of our own liberty. The truth is, God Almighty did serve himself of a most unlawful dispensation granted by the Pope to King Henry the eighth, to marry his brothers Wife, as an occasion of this great work. Holins. in Hen. 8. p. 923. Hall. 22. H. 8. p. 199. I say unlawful, because it was after judged unlawful by the Universities of England, France, Italy, after mature delibe­ration, and some of them upon oath, and by above an hundred forrein Doctours of prin­cipal reputation for learning. The coales of the Kings suspicion were kindled in Spain, France, and Flanders, no enemies to the Pope, and blown by Cardinal Wolsey for sinister ends; But it was Cranmer that struck the nail home. And God disposed all things to his own glory.

To their third exception, That to with­hold obedience is Schismatical as well as to withdraw it. I answer first, that they cannot accuse us as accessaries to Schisme, until they have first condemned their own great Pa­trons, Champions and Confessours for the principal Schismaticks. Did Roman Ca­tholicks [Page 45] themselves find right and sufficient reason to turn the Pope out of England at the foredoor, in fair daylight, as an intruder and usurper? And do they expect that Pro­testants who never had any relation to him, should let him in again by stealth at the back-door?

It is true, Queen Mary afterwards gave him houseroom again in England for a short time. But he raged so extreamly, and made such bonefires of poor innocent Christians in every corner of the Kingdome, that it is no marvail if they desired his room rather then his company.

I have often wondred how any rational man could satisfie himself so as to make the severity of our Lawes, Our Lawes are not cruel against Roman Ca­tholicks. or the rigour of our Princes since the reformation, a motive to his revolt from our Church. Surely the In­quisition was quite out of his mind; but I meddle not with forrein affaires. He might have considered, that more Protestants suf­fered death in the short Raign of Queen Mary, Men, Women, and Children, then Roman Catholicks in all the longer Raignes of all our Princes since the Reformation put together. The former by fire and faggot, a cruel lingring torment, ut sentirent se mori, that they might feel themselves to die by degrees. The other by the gibbet, with [Page 46] some opprobious circumstances, to render their sufferings more exemplary to others. The former meerly and immediately for Re­ligion, because they would not be Roman Catholicks, without any the least praetext of the violation of any political Law▪ The latter not meerly and immediately for Re­ligion, because they were Roman Catho­licks, for many known Roman Catholicks in England have lived and dyed in greater plenty, and power, and reputation in every princes raign, since the Reformation, then an English Protestant could live among the Irish Roman Catholicks, since their insur­rection. If a subject was taken at Masse it self in England, which was very rare, it was but a pecuniary mulct. No stranger was ever questioned about his religion. I may not here omit King Iames his affirmation, Apol. P. 153: That no man in his Raign, or in the Raign of his predecessor Queen Elizabeth, did suffer death for conscience sake or Reli­gion.

But they suffered for the violation of ci­vil Lawes, as either for not acknowledging the political Supremacy of the King in Ec­clesiastical causes over Ecclesiastical per­sons, which is all that we assert; which the Roman Catholicks themselves in Henry the Eighth's daies did maintain as much, or per­haps more then we. We want not the con­sent of their own Schooles, or the concur­rent practise of Kings and Parliaments of [Page 47] their own communion, In Artic. 37. p. 419, 420, &c. As Sancta Clara doth confesse, Valde multi doctores, &c. very many Doctours do hold, that for the publick bene­fit of the Commonwealth Princes have Iurisdi­ction in many causes otherwise being of Ecclesia­stical cognisance by positive Divine Law, and by the Law of Nature. And though himself seem rather to adhere to others who ascribe unto them meerly a Civil power, yet he acknow­ledgeth with the stream of Schoolmen, that by their Soveraign Office by accident, and indirectly for the defence of the Common-wealth, and the preservation of publick Ju­stice and peace, they have great power over Ecclesiastical persons in Ecclesiastical cau­ses, in many cases; As they may command Bishops to dispose their spiritual affaires to the peace of the Common-wealth, They may remove the froward from their offices, They may defend the oppressed Clergy from the unjust oppressions of Ecclesiastical Iudges, &c. which he con­fesseth to be as much as our Article setteth forth. What the practise of other Kings and Princes is herein, we shall see more fully when I come to handle my fifth Proposition; Or else for returning into the Kingdome so qualified with forbidden orders, as the Lawes of the Land do not allow. The State of Venice doth not, the Kingdom of France hath not abhorred from the like Lawes. Or lastly, for attempting to seduce some of the Kings Subjects from the Religion establish­ed in the Land. In all these cases besides [Page 48] religion, there is something of Election; He that loves Danger doth often perish in it. The truth is this, An hard Knott must have an heavy Mall; Dangerous and bloody po­sitions and practises produce severe lawes. No Kingdom is destitute of necessary reme­dies for its own conservation; If all were of my mind, as I believe many are, I could wish that all Seditious Opinions, and over rigorous statutes, with the memory of them, were buried together in perpetual oblivion. I hold him scarce a good Christian that would not cast on one spade full of earth to­wards their interrement; Pardon this di­gression, if it be one, Cruelty is a Symptome of Schisme.

Secondly, Though the first se­paraters were Schisma­ticks, we are free. I answer that though the Ro­manists could be contented to brand their own friends for the principall Schismaticks, yet they shall never be able to prove us accessaries, or fasten the same Crime upon us, who found the separation made to our hands, who never had any thing to do with Rome, who never ought them any Service but the reciprocall duty of love, who never did any act to oblige us to them, or to dis­oblige us from them; indeed it were some­thing, if they could produce a patent from Heaven of the Popes Vicariate Generall under Christ over all Christians; (But that we know they can never do) Or but so much as an old Canon of a generall Councel that did subject us to their Jurisdiction, So as [Page 49] the same were neither lawfully revo­ked, nor their power forfeited by abuse, nor quitted by themselves, untill then they may withdraw their charge of Schisme.

Nay yet more, though they could justifie their pretended title, yet we acting nothing, but preserving all things in the same condi­tion we found them, are not censurable as formal Schismaticks, whilest we erre invin­cibly, or but probably, and are implicitely prepared in our minds, to obey all our just Superiours, so far as by law we are bound, whensoever we shall be able to understand their right.

There have been many Schismes in the Roman Church it self. Sometimes two Popes, sometimes three Popes at a time. One Kingdome s [...]bmitted to one, this to another, that to a third, every one believing him to whom he submitted to be the right Pope, and every one ready to have submitted to the right Pope, if they had known who he was. Tell me, were all those that submitted to Antipopes present­ly Schismaticks? That were too hard a censure. The Antipopes themselves were the Schismaticks, and the Cardinals that Elected them, and all these who supported them for avaritious, or ambitious or uncha­ritable ends.

We may apply to this purpose that which St. Austin said concerning Haereticks, Qui [Page 50] sententiam suam quamvis falsam at (que) perver­sam nulla pertinaci animos [...]ate defendit, Aug. Epist. 162. praeser­tim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae pepe­rerit, sed à seductis et in errorem lapsis parenti­bus accepit; quaerit autem cauta solicitudine veritatem, c [...]rrigi paratus cum invenerit, n [...]quaquam est inter haereticos deputandus. He that defends not his false opinion with Pertinaci­ous animosity, having not invented it himself, but learned it from his [...]rring parents; If he inquire carefully after the truth, and be ready to embrace it, and to correct his errors when he finds them, he is not to be reputed an Here­tick.

If this be true in the case of Heresie, it holds much more strongly in the case of Schism, & especially that Schism which is grounded on­ly upon Humane constitutions. He that diso­beys a Lawful Superiour through invincible ignorance, whom he deserted not himself, but found him cast off by his parents, if he be careful to understand his duty, and ready to submit so far as in justice he is bound, he is not to be reputed a Schismatick. If men might not be saved by a general and impli­cite repentance, they were in a woful con­dition, Psal. 19. 12. for who can tell how oft he offendeth? Cleanse thou me from my secret faults. And if by general and implicite repentance, why not by general and implicite faith? why not by general and implicite obedience? So as they do their uttermost indeavours to learn their duties, and are ready to conform them­selves [Page 51] when they know them. God looks upon his creatures with all their prejudices, and expects no more of them then accord­ing to the talents which he hath given them. If I had books for that purpose, I might have cited, many Lawes and many Authors to prove that the final separation from Rome was made long before the reformation of the Church of England. But it is a truth so evident and so undeniable by all these who understand our affaires, that I seem to my self to have done overmuch in it already.

I do expect that it should be urged by some that there was a double separation of the Church of England from Rome; Protestants no authors of the se­paration from the Church of Rome. The former from the court of Rome; The second from the Church of Rome; The former in point of discipline; The latter in point of Doctrine; The former made in the daies of Henry the Eighth; The other in the daies of Edward the sixth. That if the Prote­stants were not guilty of the former, yet certainly they were guilty of the la­ter.

To this I give two answers: first that the second separation in point of Doctrine doth not concern this question, Whether the Church of England be Schismatical, but ano­ther whether the Church of England be Haere­ticall, or at least Heterodox, (for every error doth not presently make an haeresy) which cannot be determined without discussing [Page 52] the particular differences between the Church of Rome and the Church of England. It is an undeniable principle to which both parties do yeeld firm assent, Mr. Knot Inf. num. p. 534. that they who made the first separation from the primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions in faith, Lei­turgy, or use of the Sacraments, are the guilty party. Yea though the separation were not local but onely moral, by introducing errours and innovations, and making no other secession: This is the issue of our controversie. If they have innovated first, then we are innocent, and have done no more then our duties. It is not the separa­tion, but the cause that makes a Schisma­tique.

Secondly I answer, that as Roman Catho­licks (not Protestants) were the authors of the Separation of England from the Court of Rome, so the Court of Rome it self (not Prote­stants) made the Separation of England from the communion of the Church of Rome, by their unjust and tyrannical censures, excom­munications, and interdictions, which they thundred out against the Realm, for denying their spiritual Soveraignty by divine right, before any reformation made by Prote­stants. It was not Protestants that left the communion of the Church of Rome, but the Court of Rome that thrust all the English Nation both Protestants and Roman Ca­tholicks together out of their doores, and chased them away from them, when Pope [Page 53] Paul the third excommunicated and inter­dicted England, Bulla Pauli 3. apud Sander. de Schism. l. 1. p. 109. in the daies of Henry the eighth, before ever any reformation was attempted by the Protestants. In that con­dition the Protestants found the Church and Kingdom of England in the daies of Edward the sixth. So there was no need of any new separation from the communion of the Church of Rome, The Court of Rome had done [...]hat to their hands. So to conclude my first Proposition, Whatsoever some not knowing or not weighing the state of our affaires; And the Acts and Records of those times have rashly or ignorantly pronounced to the contrary, it is evident that the Pro­testants had no hand either in the separation of the English Church from the Court of Rome; or in their separation from the Church of Rome; The former being made by pro­fessed Roman Catholicks, the later by the Court of Rome it self, both before the re­formation following in the dayes of Edward the sixth, both at a time when the poor Pro­testants suffered death daily for their con­science upon the six bloody Articles.

CHAP. IV.
That the King and Kingdom of England in the separation from Rome di [...] make no new Law, but vindicate their ancient Liber­ties.

THe second Conclusion upon exa­mination will prove as evident as the former, that Henry the eighth and those Roman Catholicks with him, who made the great separation from the Court of Rome, did no new thing, but what their predecessors in all ages had done before them, treading in the steps of their Christian Ancestors.

And first, Eminent persons have great influ­ence with­out any Iu­risdictions. it cannot be denyed, but that any person or Society that hath an eminent reputation of learning, or prudence, or piety, or authority, or power, hath ever had, and ever will have a great influence upon his or their neighbours, without any legal Juris­diction over them, or subjection due from them.

Secondly, The dignity of the Apo­stolical Church [...]s. it is confessed, that in the pri­mitive times great was the dignity and au­thority of the Apostolical Churches, as Rome, Anti [...]ch, Ephesus, Hierusalem, Alexan­dria, which were founded by the Apostles themselves; And that those ancient Chri­stians in all their differences did look upon the Bishops of those Sees as honourable Ar­bitrators, [Page 55] and faithful Depositaries of the genuine Apostolical traditions, especially wherein they accorded one with another. Hence is that of Tertullian, [...]de prae­ser. advers. haeres. Constat omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis, matricibus, et originalibus conspi at, &c. What­soever doctrine agrees with those Apostolical ori­ginal mother Churches, is to be reputed true. And in this sense and no other Saint Cyprian a great admirer and imitater both of the matter and words of Tertullian, whom he honoured with the title of his Master, L. 4. Epis. 8. doth call the Church of Rome a Matrix and a root. But if the tradition varied, as about the observation of Easter, between Victor Bishop of Rome, and Polycrates Bishop of Ephes [...]s, the one prescribing from St. Peter and S. Paul. the other from S. Iohn. The respective Churches did conform themselves to their Superiours, or if they were free, (as the Britannique Churches were) to their own judgment, or to the example of their neighbour Churches, or kept them to the tradition delivered unto them by their first converters. As in this very controversie about Easter, and some baptismal rites, the Brittish and Scottish Bishops alwaies adhered to the Eastern Church. A strong presumpti­on that thence they received the faith, and were not subordinate to the Patriarchal See of Rome. But yet all this honourable respect proceeded from a free prudential compli­ance, without any perpetual or necessary [Page 56] subjection. Afterwards some Churches lost, some gained the place and dignity of Apo­stolical Churches, either by custome, so Ephesus lost it; or by the Canons of the Fathers, so Constantinople did get it: or lastly, Novel. 131. c. 3. et 4. by Imperial priviledges, so Iustiniana and Carthage obtained it.

Thirdly, it is not to be doubted of, but that after the year six hundred, It is no mar­vel that the Pope win­ded himself into En­gland by de­grees. after that Pope Boniface had quitted his Patriarchal dignity, by assuming a more lofty title of universal Bishop, The succeeding Popes by the connivence, leave or consent of our Kings, did sometimes more, sometimes lesse, upon pretence of their universal Jurisdicti­on, by degrees thrust in their sickle into the Ecclesiastical affaires of England. Whoso­ever shall ponder duly with what a depth of prudence the Roman Court hath mesnaged all occasions and occurrences to the advan­tage and advancement of that See, and con­sequently to the improvement of their own authority; whosoever shall weigh seriously with what art and cunning the Papacy (as it now is) was tacked into the Church contra­ry to wind and weather, and how their be­ginning of unity was scrued up to an omni­potence, and universality of power; who­soever shall duly consider what advantage they made to that See, and therein to them­selves, by the onely countenancing of Phocas his base and bloody murther, or of Charles Màrtel his more glorious and successeful re­volt, [Page 57] will not wonder to observe, how they did watch their times when we had Princes of weak Judgments, or necessitous, or super­stitious, or of unjust or Litigious titles, to wind themselves into Britain. Nay rather he will admire that they did not radicate themselves more deeply and more firmly therein; which without doubt they had effected, but for their exorbitant rapines, whilest they thought that like Foxes they might prey most boldly farthest from their own Kennel, Mat. Pa [...]. an. 1246. Anglia verè hortus noster deli­ciarum, puteus inexhaustus est, ubi multa abun­dant, multa de multis extorqueri possunt, That England indeed was his garden of delight, a Well that could not be drawn dry. And where many things did abound, out of much, much might be extorted.

But first this intrusion was manifest usur­pation and tyranny; This was the Gan­grene of the Church, which no subsequent possession or submission could warrant, no tract of time or prescription sufficiently con­firm. Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tractu temporis non convalescit, That which is not onely unjust, but invalid in its beginning, can never be made valid by the empty pretense of a following custome or prescri­ption. No Saxon, English, or Brittish King ever made any obliging submission to the Pope. Neither do I find in truth that any of the petite Saxon Kings or their Subjects, though some of them indebted to S. Grego­ry for their first conversion, and all of them much weakned by their Sevenfold division, [Page 58] (for at first of Seven Kings there was but onely one who was a Christian, namely the King of Kent; Neither was it any of his progeny who did afterwards unite the Heptarchy into a Monarchy,) much lesse that any of the succeeding Kings of Eng­land, or of great Brittain united, did ever make any Solemne, formal or obliging ac­knowledgment of their submission to the Bishop of Rome.

But on the contrary, Bed [...]l. 1. c. 25. when Austin first arrived in England, he staied in Isle of Tha­net, untill he knew the Kings pleasure, and offered not to preach in Kent, until he had the Kings License for him and his follow­ers to preach throughout his Dominions. Bed. l. 1. ch. 26. So not onely their Jurisdiction: but even the exercise of their pastorall function within that Realm, was by the Kings leave and Authority. The donation and re­signation of King Iohn whereby he went about to make a free Kingdom servile and feudatary to the Pope, did concern the Crown more then the Miter, and was soon hissed out of the world to the perpe­tual shame and infamy of such mercenary Pastors; yet to obtain this Ludibrious act the power of the Keyes was abused, and the Kingdom of England stood inter­dicted by the space of six years and three Months. The Popes. p [...]wer in England was of courtesy.

The Popes in later times had some power in England, of courtesy, not of Duty, but [Page 59] never that omnipotence which they gaped after. Sometimes they sent their Nuncios or Legates into England. So they did of old into other Patriarchates. Sometimes they admitted appeales from England to Rome. So they did of old from Africk. Sometimes they excommunicated the English Sub­jects. So did Pope Victor long since ex­communicate all the Asiaticks. But neither Asia nor Africk for all that did acknow­ledge the Popes Jurisdiction. On the other side, sometimes their Legates were not permitted to enter into the Realm, or after their arrival thrust out of the Realm, unless they wo [...]ld give caution by oath for their good demesnour. Sometimes their Bulls and excommunications were slighted or damned, and they who procured them soundly punished for their labours. Some­times all appeales to Rome were prohibited under most severe penalties, and their de­crees rejected. All this while our Kings and Bishops called Councells, the one under civil punishments, the other under Ecclesiastical, made Ecclesiastical lawes and constitutions in their Synods and Parlia­ments, yea expresse constitutions against the Court of Rome it self with as much tartnesse and vehemency as King Henry the Eighth. And with this onely difference that they indeavoured to draw the people out of the Popes clawes at home, and he thought it more expedient to throw the [Page 60] Pope over the Brittish Sea, once for altoge­ther. The old and lawful Patriarchal power of the Roman Bishops within their own de­stricts, had been renounced long before by themselves. Their new universal Monarchy, erected by themselves, was not capable of prescription; or if it had, yet such a dubious unquiet possession as the Popes did hold in England at the mercy and discretion of the right owners, was not sufficient to make a legal prescription, or to justifie their pre­tended title, or to render them bonae fidei pos­sessores, lawful and conscionable possessours. This is that which I am now to demonstrate in this second ground.

The most famous (I had almost said the onely) appellant from England to Rome that we read of before the Conquest was Wil­fride Arch-Bishop of York, Wilfride the first great Ap­p [...]llant. who notwith­standing that he gained sentence upon sen­tence at Rome in his favour; And notwith­standing that the Pope did send expresse Nuncios into England, on purpose to see his sentence executed, yet he could not obtain his restitution or the benefit of his sentence for six years, during the Raignes of King Egbert and Alfrede his son. Yea King Alfrede told the Popes Nuncios expresly, That he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honourable aspects, Sp [...]lm. conc. an. 705. but he could not give any assent to their Legation; Because it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of [...] English, should be [Page 61] restored upon the Popes Letter. If they had believed the Pope to be their competent Judge, either as universal Monarch, or so much as Patriarch of Brittaine, or any more then an honourable Arbitrator, (which all the Patriarchs were even without the bounds of their proper Jurisdictions) how comes it to passe that two Kings successively, and the great Councels of the Kingdome, and the other Arch-Bishop Theodore with all the prime Ecclesiasticks, and the flower of the English Clergy, did so long and so resolute­ly oppose so many Sentences and Messages from Rome, and condemn him twice, whom the Pope had absolved? Consider that Wilfride was an Arch-Bishop, not an infe­riour Clerk; And if an appeal from England to Rome had been proper or lawful in any case, it had been so in his case. But it was otherwise determined by those who were most concerned.

Malmesbury supposeth either by inspirati­on, or upon his own head, that the King and the [...] Arch-Bishop Theodore were smitten with remorse before their deaths, for the injury done to Wilfride and the slighting of the Popes Sentence, Letter and Legates. But the contrary is mo [...] apparently true; for first, it was not King Alfrede alone, but the great Councel of the Kingdom also; nor Theodore alone, but the main body of the Clergy, that opposed the Popes Letter, and the restitution of Wilfride, in [Page 62] that manner as it was decreed at Rome.

Secondly, after Alfrede and Theodoret were both dead, we find the Popes sentence and Wilfrides restitution still opposed by the surviving Bishops, in the Raign of Alfredes son. To clear the matter past contradiction, let us consider the ground of this long and bitter contention; Wilfride the Archbishop was become a great pluralist, and had in­grossed into his hands too many Ecclesiasti­cal dignities. The King and the Church of England thought fit to deprive him of some of them, and to confer them upon others. Wilfride appealed from their sentence unto Rome. The Pope gave sentence after sen­tence in favour of Wilfride. But for all his sentences he was not, he could not be resto­red, untill he had quitted two of his Mona­steries, which were in question, Hongesthill deane, and Ripon, which of all others he lo­ved most dearly, and where he was after­wards interred. This was not a conquest, but a plain waving of his sentences from Rome, and a yeelding of the question; for those had been the chief causes of the con­troversie. So the King and the Church af­ter Alfredes death still made good his con­clusion, That it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Councel of the English, should be restored upon the Popes Bull. And as he did not, so neither did they give any assent to the Popes Legation.

[Page 63] So unfortunate were appeales to Rome in those daies: And as unfrequent as unfor­tunate; for from that time untill Anselmes daies after the Norman Conquest in the Raign of Henry the first, we do hardly meet with another appeal. Then Pope Paschalis the second had devised a new Oath for Arch-Bishops, when they received their Pall; An oath much wondered at in all places, as a strange innovation, Significasti reges & Regni maj [...]res admiratione permotos, De el [...]ct. polest. c. 4. signifi­casti, &c. Bar. An. 1102. nu. 8. &c. You signified unto me that Kings and No­bles were moved with admiration, that the P [...]ll was offered unto you by our Ministers, upon con­dition that you should take an oath which they brought you written from us, &c.

This oath was that which animated An­selme to contest so hotly with the King. The main controversie was about this very que­stion of Appeales to Rome. The King plea­ded the fundamental Lawes and Customes of the Land, consuetudo Regni m [...]i est à Patr [...] meo instituta, ut nullius praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa. Qui consuetudines regni tol­lit, potestatem quoque & coronam Regis violat, &c. [...]. 1. de. Gest. Paul. Anglo [...]. It is a custome of my Kingdome instituted by my Father, that no Pope may be appealed un­to without [...]the Kings License. He that takes away the Customes of the Kingdome, doth vio­lence to the power and Crown of the King. It is to be noted, that the Lawes established by his Father (that was William the Conque­rour) were no other then the Lawes of Ed­ward [Page 64] the Confessor, that is to say, the old Saxon Lawes. So he might justly say, both that it was an ancient immemorial custome of the Kingdom, and also that it was insti­tuted or established by his Father. So Ho­veden tells us, Hoved. in Hen. 2. that at last he yeelded to the re­quest of his Barons, &c. that was by his au­thority to confirm the Lawes of King Ed­ward. But the best was, that though Anselme the Archbishop was obliged by oath to the Pope, yet the Bishops were not so soon brought into the same bondage. And therefore the former Authour tells us, that In his exequendis omnes Episcopi Angliae Pri­mati suo suffragium negarunt, Malm. ibid. In the execution of these things, all the Bishops of England did deny their suffrage to their Primate. So una­nimous were they in this point.

Which unanimity of the whole Realm both Clergy and Laity doth appear yet more evidently by the Statute of Clarendon, made in the Raign of the grand-child of this King, when all the Prelates and Peeres of the Realm did confirm the former ancient Brittish English custome, Math. Par. an. 1164. not onely by their consents, but by their oathes, whereof we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter. And upon this custome was that Law grounded, which our Histories do make mention of, Si quis inventus fuerit literas vel mandatum ferens Domini Papae, Rog. Hoved. in Hen. 2. &c. capiatur, et de eo sicut de Regis traditore & regni, sine dilatione fiat justitia. If any one be found bring­ing [Page 65] in the Popes Letter or Mandate, let him be apprehended, and let justice passe upon him with­out delay as a traitor to the King and Kingdom. And generally every man is interdicted, or for­bidden, to app [...]al to the Pope. And the Le­gations from Rome were almost as rare as appeals to Rome, Legations as rare as appeals. during the raigns of all the Brittish and Saxon Kings, untill the Norman conquest. As Gregory Bishop of Ostium the Popes own Legate did confess, That he was the first Roman Priest that was s [...]n [...] into those parts of B [...]i [...]tain, Spelm. conc. an. 78. from the time of S. Austin. And those Legates were no others then ordinary messengers or Embassadors, sent from one Neighbour to another▪ Such a thing as a Legantine Court, or a Nuncios Court, was not known in the Brit­tish world in those ages, and long after. It is not enough to shew that one Roman Bi­shop did once send over one or two Do­ctors to help to propagate or confirm the faith, or to lend their helping hands to Religion fainting.

This may well set forth their devo­tion, and our obligation. But further as to the present question it signifies just nothing.

Favours cease to be favours, when they are done on purpose to deprive men of their ancient liberties. The Brittish Bi­shops, and English also, have done as much for other Nations, over whom they did never challenge any Jurisdiction. The [Page 66] French Church sent over Germanus & Lupus to help to root up the relicks of Pelagia­nisme in Brittain, yet did never pretend thereby to any authority over the Brit­taines.

Add to this, Saxon Kings made Ecclesiasti­cal Laws. that during all the time from St. Gregory to the conquest, it was usual for the Brittish, Saxon, and Danish Kings, with their Clergy or great Councel, to make Ecclesiastical lawes, and to regulate the external discipline of the Church within their Dominions: Witnesse the lawes of Ercombert, Ina, Withred, Alfrede, Edward, Athelstan, Edmond, Edgar, Athelred, Ca­nutus, and Edward the Confessor, among whose lawes one makes it the office of a King to govern the Church as the Vicar of God. Another implyes a power in the King and his Judges, Chap. 15. Chap. 5. to take cognisance of wrong done in Ecclesiastical Courts. It was to this Holy King Edward the Confessor, that Pope Nicholas the second by his bull for him and his Successours, granted this ensuing privi­ledge to the Kings of England for ever; Namely, the Advocation and protection of all the Churches of England, Spelm. conc. An. 1066. and power in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical constitutions, with the advise of their Bishops and Abbats. This grant is as full or fuller then that which Vrban the second made to Roger Earl of Sicily, from whence the Kings of Spain at this day do not onely Challenge, but enjoy in a manner all Ecclesiastical [Page 67] power in Sicily. If the Pope had ever had any such right as he pretends, this onely Bull were sufficient to justifie our Kings. But they injoyed this very power from the beginning, as an essential flower of their Crownes, without any thanks to the Pope. To make just Ecclesiasticall constitutions in the Popes stead, saith the Bull. To govern the Church as the Vicar of God, saith the law of the Land.

The Bishops of Rome have ever been very kind, An old Ar­tifice of the Roman Bi­shops. in granting those things which were none of their own, and in making deputations and delegations to them who stood in no need of their help, being law­fully invested before hand by another title, in that power and dignity, which the Popes pretended out of their goodnesse to con­fer upon them, but in truth, did it onely for the reputation of their See, and for main­taining the opinion of their own Gran­deur. Whether the deputation were accept­ed or not, they did not much trouble them­selves. So they dealt with [...] president in the Councell of Nice; So they dealt with the Patriarch of Iustiniana Prima; so they served Good King Edward, and many others.

This Legislative power in Ecclesiastical causes over Ecclesiasticall persons, Norman Kings in­joyed the same pow­er. the Nor­man Kings after the conquest did also exer­cise from time to time, with the advice and consent of their Lords spiritual and tem­poral. [Page 68] Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices, Tythes, Advowsons, Lands given in Mortmain, prohibitions, consultations, praemunires, quare Impedits, priviledge of Clergy, extortions of Ecclesiasticall courts or officers, and regulating their due fees, wages of Priests, Mortuaries, Sanctuaries, Appropriations, and in summe all things which did belong to the externall subsi­stence, regiment, and regulating of the Church, and this in the raigns of our best Kings, long and long before the reforma­tion.

Othobone the Popes Legate under Vrban the fifth would have indowed Vicars upon appropriated Rectories, Cap. quon. de App [...]pr. 15. R. 2. c. 64 H. 4. c. 12. but could not. But our Kings by two Statutes or Acts of Par­liament did easily effect it. With us the Pope could not make a Spiritual corporati­on, but the King. The Pope could not ex­empt from the Jurisdiction of the ordinary, but the King, who by his charter could convert Seculars into Regulars. 2. H. 4. c. 3, 2. H 4. c. 4. The Pope could not grant the Priviledge of the Ci­stercians and other orders, to be free from the payment of Tyths; but the King. The Pope could not appropriate Churches, but the King: we find eight Churches ap­propriated to the Abby of Crowland by the Saxon Kings, three Churches appropri­ated to the Abby of Battell by the Con­querour, and twenty by Henry the first to [...]e Church of Sarisbury. The King in his [Page 69] great Councel could make void the certifi­cates of Ordinaries in cases of Ecclesiasticall cognisance, and command them to absolve those persons who were judged by his au­thority to be unjustly excommunicated. 9. H. 6. c. 11. Co [...]k R [...]port. Cawdries case. The Pope could not translate an Arch Bi­shoprick or a Bishoprick, but the King. The disposition of Ecclesiastical preferments upon lapse accrued not to the Pope but to the King; a plain evidence that he was the Lord Paramount. And the King onely could incurre no lapse, Nullum tempus oc­currit Regi; because the law supposed that he was busied about the weightie affaires of the Kingdom. The revenewes of a Bi­shoprick in the vacancy belonged not unto the Pope; but to the King, which he caused to be restored, sometimes from the time of the first vacancy, sometimes from the time of the filling of the Church with a new Incumbent according to his good pleasure.

The Canons of the Pope could not change the Ecclesiastical Lawes of England▪ but the King, Canon law of no more force in England then as it was re­ceived. whose lawes they were. He had power in his great Councel to receive the canons if they were judged convenient, or to reject them, and abrogate them, if they were judged inconvenient. When some Bishops proposed in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the Legitimation of Children born before marriage (without such a reception the [Page 70] Canon was of no force in England) All the Peers of the Realm stood up and cryed out with one voice, Nolumus leges Angliae mutari, We will not have the lawes of England to be changed. 20. H. 3. c. 9. 4. E. 1. c. 5. The King and Parliament made a Legislative exposition of the Canon of the Councel of Lyons concerning Bigamy, Bigamy. which they would not have done, unlesse they had conceived themselves to have power, according to the fundamental constitutions of the kingdom, either to receive it, or reject it. Ejus est legem inter­pretari cujus est condere; He that hath au­thority to expound a law Legislatively, hath power to make it. The King and Parliament declared Pope Vrban to be the right Pope in a time of Schisme, 2. R. 2. c. 6. that is, in relation to England, their own Kingdom, not by determining the titles of the Popes, but by applying the matter to the one, and substracting it from the other. All these are so many evidences, that when Popery was at the highest, the Bishops of Rome had no such absolute Ecclesiasticall Sove­raignty in the Church and Realm of En­gland. And that what power they exercised at any time more then this, was by conni­vence, or permission, or violent usurpation. And that our Primates had no forraign Superiour Legally established over them, but onely the King as he was the Supream head of the whole body politick. Aedmer. in initio. To see that every one did his duty, and injoyed [Page 71] his due right. Who would not suffer one of his Barons to be excommunicated from Rome, without his privity and con­sent.

No Legate de latere was allowed by the law in England, but the Archbishop of Canturbury. Placit an 1. H. 7. Pl. an 1. H, 7. And if any was admitted of courtesy, he was to take his oath, to do nothing▪ derogatory to the King and his Crown. Pl. an. 32. et 34. E. 1. If any man did denounce the Popes excommunication without the assent of the King, by the law he forfeited all his goods. Neither might any man appeale to Rome without the Kings License. In the year 1420▪ the Pope translated the Bi­shop of Lincolne to York. But the Dean and Chapter absolutely refused to admit him, and justified their refusal by the Laws of the Land; And by the favour of the country carried the cause. So as the Pope was forced to Recall him to Lin­colne. Ant. Brit. 279.

Having mentioned the statutes of Mort­main, The statute of Mort­main ju­stified. I cannot but do my native country, and the Church of England that right, to clear it from an heavy accusa [...]ion framed against it upon mistaken grounds. That the English protestants had made a Law to maintain and patronize Sacriledge, that no man (how penitent soever) could restore any thing to the Church, which had been formerly taken from it. God forbid. First the sta­tutes of Mortmain were not made by Pro­testants, [Page 72] but in the daies of Henry the third, Edward the first, and Richard the second, between the last of which, and Henry the eighth, there raigned six Kings successively. That is one great mistake. Secondly, the Statutes of Mortmain did not at all concern the restitution of any thing that had been taken away. There was no use for that in those daies. The onely scope of those Lawes was to restrain the first donation of Lands to the Church without royal assent, That is another mistake. Thirdly, these very Lawes of Mortmain are not so incre­dible, nor so hard to be believed, nor so al­together destitute of presidents and exam­ples, as that authour doth imagine, so as posterity should scarcely believe that ever any such Law had been made.

He might have remembred the Proclama­tion of Moses, when the people had already offered abundantly, for the adorning of the Sanctuary▪ Exod. 36. 6. Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the Sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing. He might have called to mind a like law of Theodosius a godly Emperour, and propi­tious to the Church, to moderate the peo­ples bounty, and the Clergies covetousness. Which Law Saint Ambrose and Saint Hie­rome do so much complain of, [...]. not against the Emperour who made the Law, but against the Clergy, who deserved to have such a Law made against them. He might [Page 73] have found the like Law made by Nicepho­rus, Nicet. l. 7. Phocas, and afterwards revived by Ema­nuel Comenus. He might have remembred, that the troubles between the Pope and the Venetians did spring partly from such a Law.

Briefly, with a little search he might have found like Lawes in Germany, Poland, France, Spain, Consid. p. 49 Italy, Sicily; And if he will trust Padre Pa [...]lo, in the Papacy it self. The Prince cannot wrong his Subject that is an owner or possessour of Lands or haereditaments in a well ordered State. Then why should it be in the power of a Subject that is an owner to wrong his Prince and his Coun­try? But by such alienations of Lands to the Church in an excessive and unpro­portionable measure, the Prince loseth his right, that is, both his tribute, and his mili­tary service, and fines upon change of Te­nants. The Common-Wealth loseth its supportation and due protection. There­fore they were called the Lawes of Mort­main, because Lands so ali [...]nated to the Church were put into a dead hand, from whence they never returned: And so in time the whole Signioury should be the Churches, as it is elegantly expressed by the Venetian Oratour to Paul the fifth, Nè for­tunis omnibus exuantur, Oratio ad Paul 5. pro Rep. Veneta. ne quicquid sub coelo Veneto homines arant, ferunt, aedificant, omnia veluti quodam oceano Ecclesiae absorbeantur, [...]i­hil (que) sibi reliqui fiat unde Rempublicam, pa­triam, [Page 74] tecta, templa, aras, focos, sepultura ma­jorum defendere possint, Lest the Citizens should be turned out of their estates, lest all which men plow, sow, build under the V [...]netian heaven should be swallowed up into the Ocean of the Church; And nothing be left where with to defend the Common-Wealth, their Country, their houses, their temples, their altars, their fires, and the sepulchers of their Ancestors.

To prevent this great inconvenience, the Lawes of Mortmain were devised prudently, to ballance the spiritualty and the tempo­ralty, that the one do not swallow up the other, to which all wise Legislators have ever had, & ought to have a special regard.

In France no man can build a new Church without the Kings License verified in Par­liament: A new Monastery builded in Genua without License is to be confiscated. In Spain without License Royal no new Re­ligions can enter into the Kingdome. The Fathers of Saint Francis de Paula began to build a Church in Madrid, upon their own heads, but they were stopped. So aequi­table, so necessary, hath this Law of Mort­main been thought to all Nations.

But to leave this digression, and to come up closer to the direct point without any consequences. Mat. Pa [...]. an. 1164. In the Reign of King Henry the second some controversies being likely to arise between the Crown and Thomas B [...]cket Archbishop of Canterbury, The King called a general Assembly of his Archbishops, [Page 75] Bishops, Abbats, Priors, and Peers of the Realm, at Clarendon, where there was made an acknowledgment or memorial, cujusdam partis consuetudinum & libertatum Antecesso­rum suorum, Regis videlicet Henrici avi sui, & aliorum, quaeobservari debebant in Regno, & ab omnibus teneri, of a certain part of the Customes and Liberties of his predecessors, that is to say, his Grand-father Henry the first son of the Conquerour, and other Kings. (A parte) but ex ungue Leonem; from the view of this part we may conclude of what nature the rest were (of the customes). The customes of England are the Common Law of the Land. (of his predecessors) that is to say, the Saxon, Danish, and Norman Kings successively. And therefore no marveil if they ought to be ob­served of all.

This part of their ancient customes or liberties they reduced into sixteen Chapters or Articles, To which all the Archbishops, Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks, with all the Peeres and Nobles of the Realm did not onely give their acknowledgment, and con­sent, but also their oathes, for the due obser­vation of them. It would be tedious and impertinent to relate them all, I will onely cull out some of them. One was, that all appeales in England must proceed regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the King, to give order for redresse, that is, by fit [Page 76] Delegates. But there might be no further or other Appeales without the consent of the King: whereby the Nunciature [...], and Legantine Court, and the Court of Rome it self are all at the Kings mercy. Wherein did the Popes great strength lie in those dayes? when his hands were fast tied both at home and abroad.

Another Custome was, that no Ecclesiasti­call person might depart out of the Kingdome without the Kings License (no not though he were summoned by the Bishop of Rome.) And if the King permitted them to go, yet if he required it, they must give caution or secu­rity to act nothing hurtful or prejudicial to the King or Kingdome, in their going thither, abiding there, a [...]d returning home. You see our An­cestors were jealous of Rome in those daies. Whether it was their providence or their experience that [...]aught them this lesson, cer­tainly their prudence to prevent dangers was very commendable.

A third custome was, that the revenues of all Ecclesiastical dignities belonging to the Kings demeisne, during the vacancy, were to be received by the King, as freely as the rents of his own demeisnes. Tell me, who was then the Patron and Political Head of the Church?

A fourth Custome was, that when an Arch-Bishoprick, Bishoprick, Abbacy or Priory did fall void, the election was to be made by such of the principal dignitaries or members of that respe­ctive [Page 77] Church which was to be filled, as the King should call together for that purpose, with the Kings consent, in the Kings own Chappell. And there the person elected was to do his homage and fealty to the King, as to his Liege Lord. That later form of, Dei & Apostolicae sedis gratia, had taken no root in England in those daies.

The rest are of the same nature, as that Controversies concerning Advowsons ought to be determined in the Kings Court. Benefices belonging to the Kings patronage could not be appropriated without his grant.

When a Clergy man was accused of any Delinquency, the Kings Court ought to determine what part of his accusation was of Civil, and what part of Ecclesiasti­cal cognisance. And the Kings Justice might send to the Ecclesiastical Court to see it ordered accordingly. None of the Kings Servants or Tenants that held of him in capite might be excommunicated, nor their Lands interdicted, before the King was made acquainted.

When it was questioned whether a Tene­ment were of Ecclesiastick or Lay fee, the Kings Justice was to determine it by the oathes of twelve men. All Ecclesiasticall persons who held any possessions from the King in capite, were to do suit and ser­vice for the same as other Barons did, and to joyn with the Kings Barons [Page 78] in the Kings Judgments, untill it came to sentence of death, or diminution of mem­ber.

To this memorial all the Nobility and Clergy of the English Nation did swear firmly, in the word of truth, to keep all the customes therein contained, and observe them faithfully to the King and his heires for ever. Among the rest, Thomas Becket the Archbishop of Canterbury himself was carried along with the crowd to take this Oath: Though shortly after he fell from it, and admitted the Popes absolution.

By the Statute of Carlile made in the daies of Edward the first it was declared, 35. E. 1. Statute of Carlile. That the holy Church of England was founded in the estate of Prelacy, within the Realm of England, by the Kings and Peeres thereof. And that the several incroachments of the Bishop of Rome specified in that Act, did tend to the annullation of the state of the Church, the dis­inheriting of the King and the Peeres, and the destruction of the Lawes and rights of the Realm, (contra formam collationis) contrary to the dispo­sition and will of the first founders. Observe [in the estate of Prelacy] not of Papacy. [with­in the Realm] not without it. [By the Kings] not by the Popes, of whose exorbitant and destructive usurpations as our Ancestors were most sensible; so they wanted neither will nor power to remedy them.

To corroborate this Law by former pre­sidents, and thereby to shew that our Kings [Page 79] were ever accounted the right Patrons of the English Church. Malm. de Gest. Pont. King Edelwalk made Wilfride Bishop of the South Saxons, Aug. p. 257. now Chichester. Id. l. 2. p. 45. p. 242. King Alfrede made Assertie Bi­shop of Sherburn: And Oenewulphus Bishop of Winchester. Id. l. 1. p. 204. Edward the Confessor made Robert Archbishop, whom before from a Monk he had made Bishop of London. Thus the Saxon Kings in all ages bestowed Bi­shopricks without any contradiction. The Norman Kings followed their example. No sooner was Stigand dead, but William the Conquerour elected Lanfrank Abbat of Saint Stephens in Caen to be Archbishop. William Rufus upon his death-bed elected Anselme to be Archbishop of Canterbury. And untill the daies of Henry the first, the Popes never pretended any right, nor laid any claim to the Patronage of the English Churches.

The Articles of the Clergy do prescribe that elections be free, Articuli cle­ri. so as the Kings conge d'eslire, or License to elect be first obtained, and afterwards the election be made good [...]y the Royal assent and confirmation. 25. E. 3. And the Sta­tute of provisors, Our Soveraign Lord the King and his heires, shall have and enjoy for the time the collations to the Archbishopricks and other dignities elective which be of his Advowry, such as his progenitors had before free election was granted. Sith the first elections were gran­ted by the Kings progenitors upon a certain form and condition, as namely, to demand License of [Page 80] the King to choose, and after choise made, to have his Royal assent. Which condition not being kept, the thing ought by reason to return to its first nature.

Further by the same Statute of provi­sors it is declaratively enacted, That it is the right of the Crown of England, 25. E. 3. and the Law of the Realm, that upon such mischiefs and dam­mages happening to the Realm, (by the in­croachments and oppressions of the Court of Rome mentioned in the body of that Law) The King ought, and is bound by his oath with the accord of his people in Pa [...]liament, to make remedy and Law, for the removing of such mis­chiefs. We find at least seven or eight such Statutes made in the Raigns of several Kings against Papal provisions, reservations, and collations, and the mischiefs that flowed from thence.

Let us listen to another Law, The Crown of England hath been so free at all times, 16. R. 2. C. 5. that it hath been i [...] no earthly subjection, but imme­diately subjected to God in all things touching its regality, and to no other, and ought not to be submitted to the Pope. Observe these expressions, free at all times, free in all things, in no earthly subjection, immediate­ly subjected to God, not to be submitted to the Pope. And all this in Ecclesiastical af­faires, for of that nature were all the grie­vances complained of in that Law, as ap­pears by the view of the Statute it self. Then if the Kings of England and the representa­tive [Page 81] body of the English Church do reform themselves according to the word of God, and the purest Patterns of the primitive times, they owe no account to any, as of duty, but to God alone.

By the same statute it is enacted, That they who shall procure or prosecute any popish Bulls and excommunications (in certain cases) shall incurre the forfeiture of their estates, or be ba­nished, or put out of the Kings protection. By other statutes it is enacted. That whosoever should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm, 27. E. 3. c. 1. (to Rome) in plea about any cause, whereof the cognisance belongeth to the Kings Court, or should sue in any forrain court to de­feat any judgment given in the Kings court, (That is by appealing to Rome) they should incur the same penalties. The body of the Kingdom would not suffer Edward the first to be cited before the Pope. Henry the sixth, by the Councel of Humphry Duke of Glocester the Protector, protested against Pope Martin and his Legate, That they would not admit him contrary to the lawes and liberties of the Realm, Act. and. mon. and dissented from whatsoever he did.

So we see plainly, that the King and Church of England ever injoyed as great or greater liberties then the Gallican King and Church. And that King Henry the eighth did no more in effect then his pro­genitors from time to time had done be­fore him. Onely they laboured to damme [Page 82] up the stream, and he thought it more expe­dient to stop up the fountain of papal Tyranny, not by limiting the habitual Ju­risdiction of the Roman Bishop, which was not in his power to do, but by sub­stracting the matter, and restraining the actual exercise of it within his own domini­ons. And it is observable, that in the great­est heat of these contentions, the Praelates of the Realm being present in Parliament disa­vowed the Popes incroachments, and offered the King to stand with him in these and all other cases touching his Crown and regality, as they were bound by their allegiance. That is, according to the law of Fe [...]ds, according to their homage done, and according to the oath which they had taken at their Investitures into their Bishopricks.

Indeed, of later daies during those blou­dy wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, the Popes sometimes invaded this undoubted right of our Kings de facto, not de jure, as was easie for them to do, And tendered to the Bishops at their investitures another oath of their own making, at first modest and innocent enough, that they should observe regulas Sanctorum Patrum, Pontif. ve­ [...]us. the rules of the Holy Fathers; But after they altered the oath, Pontif. no­vum. and falsified their Pontifi­call as well as their faith, changing regulas Sanctorum Patrum, into Regalia Sancti Petri, that they should maintain the Royalties of St. Peter. A shamelesse forgery and ad­mitting [Page 83] them to be the interpreters of their own forms, opening a gap to rob Kings of the fairest Jewels of their crownes, and Bishops not onely of their Jurisdictions, but also of their loyalty and allegiance to their lawful Soveraigns, unlesse they take the oath with a protestation, as our Arch-Bishop Cranmer did, Ex Regist. Cra [...]m. P. 4. That he would not bind himself to any thing contrary to the Lawes of God or the Realm, or the benefit thereof; Nor yet limit himself in the reformation or Govern­ment of the Church. Hall in Hen­rico. 8. fol. 206. Before which time two opposite and repugnant oathes were admi­nistred to the Bishops, as Henry the eighth made it appear plainly in Parlia­ment.

Many things in prudence might be done but for fear of such like alterations and in­croachments. Our Kings gave Peterpence to Rome as an almes; But in processe of time it was exacted as a tribute. The Empe­rours for more solemnity chose to be sworn by the Pope at Rome▪ as the Kings of France at Rhemes, and the Kings of England at Westminster. And this was misinterpre­ted as a doing homage to the Pope.

[Page 84] Poets might be bold by authority: But it rested not there. Good Authors affirm the challenge in good earnest. Occh. p [...]rt. 2. c. 22. And Clement the fifth in one of his Canons or Decrees doth conclude it, de f [...]ill. & re [...]udic. declaramus juramenta praedicta fi­de litatis existere e [...] cerse [...]i debere, We declare that the aforesaid oathes are and ought to be esteemed oathes of allegiance. Lay these particulars to­gether, The Sove­raignty of our Kings in Ecclesi­astical cau­ses over Ecclesiasti­cal per­sons Our Kings from time to time called Councels, made Ecclesiastical Laws, punished Ecclesiastical persons, and see that they did their duties in their callings, prohibited Ec­clesiastical Judges to proceed, received ap­peals from Ecclesiastical Courts, rejected the Lawes of the Pope at their pleasure, with a nolumus, we will not have the Lawes of En­gland to be changed, or gave Legislative in­terpretations of them as they thought good, made Ecclesiastical corporations, appropri­ated benefices, translated Episcopal Sees, forbid appeales to Rome, rejected the Popes Bulls, protested against his Legates, questio­ned both the Legates themselves, and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench; I may adde, and made them pay at once an hundred and eighteen thousand pounds as a composition for their estates, condemned the excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court, would not permit a Peer, or Baron of the Realm to be excommunicated without their consents, en­joyed the patronage of Bishopricks, and the investitures of Bishops, inlarged or restrai­ned [Page 85] the priviledge of Clergy, prescribed the indowment of Vicars, set down the wages of Priests, and made acts to remedy the op­pressions of the Court of Rome.

What did King Henry the eighth in effect more then this? He forbad all suites to the Court of Rome by proclamation, which San­ders calls the beginning of the Schisme, di­vers Statutes did the same. Antiqu. Brit. p. 325. He excluded the Popes Legates, so did the Law of the Land, without the Kings special License. King Henry 8. did no more then his prede­cessours. He forbad appeals to Rome, so did his predecessors ma­ny ages before him. He took away the Popes dispensations, what did he in that but restore the English Bishops to their ancient right, and the Lawes of the Country with the Ca­nons of the Fathers to their vigour? He chal­lenged and assumed a political Supremacy over Ecclesiastical persons in Ecclesiastical causes; So did Edward the Confessour govern the Church as the Vicar of God in his own King­dome. So did his predecessours hold their Crowns as immediately subjected to God, not subjected to the Pope. On the other side, the Pope by our English Lawes could neither reward freely, nor punish freely, neither whom, nor where, nor when he thought fit, but by the consent or connivence of the State. He could neither do justice in England by the Legates without controllment, nor call English men to Rome without the Kings License. Here is small appearance of a good legal prescription, nor any pregnant signs of [Page 86] any Soveraign power and Jurisdiction, by undoubted right, and so evident uncontro­verted a title as is pretended.

I might conclude this my second propo­sition with the testimonies of the greatest Lawyers and Judges of our land. The judg­ment of our English Lawyers. Artists ought to be credited in their own Art. That the lawes made by King Henry on this be­half were not operative but declarative; Fitzherb. Natu. brev. 44. not made to create any new law, but onely to vindicate and restore the ancient law of England, Lord Cook, Cawdries [...]ase. and its ancient Jurisdiction to the Crown. There had needed no restitution if there had not been some usurpation. And who can wonder that the Court of Rome so potent, so prudent, so vigilant and intent to their own advantage, should have made some progresse in their long destined pro­ject, during the raigns of six or seven Kings immediately succeeding one another, who were all either of doubtful title, or meer usurpers without any title, Such as cared not much for the flowers of the Crown, so they might but hold the Diademe it self from their competitors?

Therefore our Ecclesiasticall law was cal­led the Kings law, because the edge and validity of it did proceed from authority royal, our Ecclesiasticall Courts were sti­led the Kings Courts▪ by his Judges.

It is true, the habitual Jurisdiction of Bi­shops flowes from their Ordination: But the actual exercise thereof in Publick courts, [Page 87] after a coercive manner is from the graci­ous concessions of Soveraign Princes. In a word, the law being meerly intended as a remedy against usurpation, it cannot be a new Law, but onely a Legislative declara­tion of the Old Common Law of En­gland.

I will conclude this Chapter with the words of Bishop Bilson: As for his Pa­triarchate by Gods law he hath non [...]; in this Realm for Six hundred years after Christ he had non [...]; The true differ. Part 2. for the last Six hundred years look­ing after greater matters he would have none; Above or against the Princes Sword, he can have none; to the Subversion of the Faith or oppression of his Brethre [...] he ought to have none; you must seek further for Subjection to his Tribunall; This Land [...]weth him none.

CHAP. V.
That the Britanick Churches were ever ex­empted from forraign Iurisdiction, for the first six hundred years, And so ought to continue.

THirdly, supposing that the re­formed Church of England had separated it self from Rome, and supposing that the municipal laws [Page 88] of the Realm then in force had not war­ranted such a separation; yet the British Churches, that is the Churches of the Bri­tish Islands, England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c. by the constitution of the Apostles, and by the solemne sentence of the Catholique Church, are exempted from all forraign Ju­risdiction, and cannot be Schismatical in the lawful vindication of a just priviledge so well founded: for the clearer manifestati­on whereof let us consider. Cyp. de unit▪ Ecclesiae.

First, that all the twelve Apostles were equall in mission, Conc. Eph. in Epist. equall in commission, equall in power, Synod. ad N [...]stor. equall in honour, equal in all thing [...], Ambr. et alij. Bell de Pont. l. 4. [...] C. 22. except priority of order, without which no Society can well Sub­sist.

So much Bellarmine confesseth, that by these words, As my father sent me, so send I you, Our Saviour endowed them with all the fulnesse of power that mortall men were capable of. And therefore no single Apo­stle had Jurisdiction over the rest, par in parem no [...] habet potestatem, The su­premacy in the whole Colledge of the Apo­stl [...]s. but the whole Colledge of Apostles to which the supream Mesnagery of Ecclesiasticall affaires did be­long in common, whether a new Apostle was to be ordained, or the office of Deacon­ship was to be erected, Act. 1. Act. 6. or fit persons were to be delegated for the ordering of the Church, [...]ct. 8. st 1 [...]. Act. 11. as Peter and Iohn, Iudas and Sylas; Or informations of great moment were to be heard▪ Act. 11. as against Peter himself. Though [Page 89] Peter out of Modesty might condescend and submit to that to which he was not ob­liged in duty; yet it had not become the other Apostles to sit as Judges upon their Superiour, Act 15. placed over them by Christ. Or whether the weightier questions, of the cal­ling of the Gentiles, and circumcision, & the law of Moses, were to be determined, still we find the Supremacy in the Colledge.

Secondly, The other Apostles had Succes­sors as well as S. Peter. that drousy dream, that the plenitude of Ecclesiastical power and Ju­risdiction was given by Christ to Saint Peter as to an ordinary Pastour, to be deri­ved from him to his Successours, but to the rest of the Apostles as delegates for tearm of life, to die with themselves, as it is lately and boldly asserted, without reason, with­out authority, either divine or humane, so it is most repugnant to the doctrine of the Fa­thers, who make all Bishops to be the Vi­cars and Embassadours of Christ, (not of the Pope) and successours of the Apostles, indifferently, Vicaria ordinatione, who make but one Episcopacy in the world, whereof every Bishop hath an equal share. St. Peter was a Pastor, and the Pastoral office is of perpetual necessity in the Church. True; But so were all the rest of the Apostles Pastors as well as he. And if we examine the matter more narrowly cui bono? for whose advan­tage this distinction was devised, it was not for S. Peters own advantage, who setting aside his principallity of order) is confessed [Page 90] to have had but an equall share of power with his fellow Apostles, but fors, the Popes advantage, and the Roman courts, whom they desire to invest solely with the key of all originall Jurisdiction.

And if we trace on this Argument a lit­tle further, Why the Bi­shop of Rome, S. Peters suc­c [...]ssour ra­ther then of Antioch. to search out how the Bishop of Rome comes to be Saint Peters heire, ex ass [...], to the exclusion of his Elder Brother the Bishop of Antioch, they produce no au­thority that I have seen, but a blind ill grounded legend, Plat. in vita Sti. Pe [...]ri. out of a counterfeit He­g [...]sippus, of Saint Peters being about to leave Rome, and Christs meeting him upon the way and admonishing him to return to Rome, where he must be crucified for his name; which reason halts on both sides; The foundation is Apocryphal, and the super­struction is weak and unjointed without any necessary connexion.

Thirdly, The highest constitution of the Apo­stles ex­ceeded not nat [...]onal Primats. it appeareth not to us, that the Apostles in their daies did either set up any universall Monarchy in the Church, or so much dilate the borders or bounds of any one mans single Jurisdiction, as to subject so great a part of the Christian World, as the Western Patriarchate, to his obedience. The highest that they went, if any of those Canons which bear their names be genuine, was to nationall or provincial Primates or Patriarchs; for a Protarch or Primate and a Patriarch, in the language of the ancient Church signified one and the same thing, in [Page 91] whose praeheminence there was more of order and care, then of single Jurisdiction and power. Read their three and thirtieth Canon. Can. Apost. 33. It behooves the Bishops of every di­stinct Nation to know him who is their first, (or Primate) and to esteem him as their head. And to do nothing that is of difficulty, or great mo­ment contrary to his opinion. But neither let him. do any thing without the opinion of all them. This Nationall Primacy, or Protarchat [...], or Patriarchate under which the Britan­nique Churches flourished for many ages, is the very same which we contend for.

Fourthly, How some Primates came to be more re­spected in the Church then others. it is worthy of our inquiry, how in processe of time some Primates did obtain a much more eminent degree of ho­nour, and a larger share in the govern­ment of the Church then others. And of this their adventitious Grandeur, we find three principal fountaines. First, ancient customes. Secondly, the Canons of the Fa­thers. And thirdly, the edicts of Christian Princes.

First, Either by custom. ancient customes. Upon this ground the first generall Councel of Nice settled the authority and priveledges of the three Pa­triarchal Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, Con. Nic. Let ancient customes prevail. And these customes commonly proceeded either from the memory of the Apostles, who had founded such Churches, from whence as from Apostolical fountaines their neigh­bours [Page 92] did fetch sound doctrine, and reci­procally paid to them due respect. So Ho­sius proposed in the Occidental Councel of Sardis, in favour of the See of Rome, Doth it please you that we should honour the me­mory of St. Peter? Or from the Gran­deur of the City. Or from the more power­full principallity of the City, which is al­ledged by the Councel of Chalcedon as a reason of the greatnesse both of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople, Conc: Chal. [...] &c. because they were the seats of the Emperours.

Secondly, Or by de­crees of Councels. the Canons of the Fathers, either without custome or against custome. Thus the Bishop of Hierusalem, an Apo­stolical See, was raised above the Bishop of Cesarea an Imperial City, notwithstand­ing the contrary custome. Thus Constan­tinople, because it was newly made the seat of the Empire, was equalled to an Apostolical See, that is Rome, and preferred before all the rest, by the general Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon, notwith­standing the opposition of the Bishop of Rome by his Legats, who grieved the more to see Thracia, which he conceived to be­long to his own Jurisdiction, to be annexed to a rival See.

Lastly, Or by E­dicts of Princes. the Edicts of Soveraign Princes, who out of favour, either to the place of their Birth, or of their residence, or of their own foundation, or forthe Weal-publick, and better accomodation of their subjects; have enlarged or restrain [...] Patriarchates within [Page 93] their own Territories, and raised up new Primats or Patriarchs as they thought fit: But of this more in my next conclu­sion.

Fifthly, Many Pr [...] ­mats sub­ject to none of the five great Pa­triarchs. notwithstanding the prehemi­nence of the five great Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Hi [...]rusalem; and their great power and authority in the Church, especially in general Councels; yet there were many other Protarchs or Patriarchs, who had no dependance upon them at all out of Coun­cel, nor ought them any obedience, but onely a precedence and honourable re­spect.

Ruffinus a Priest of the Romane Church who lived not long after the councel of Nice; Ruff. hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. And one who understood the anci­ent proper bounds of the Romane Patriar­chate as well as any man, doth limit it to the Suburbicary Churches▪ that is a part of Italy, and three Islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Africk had a Primate of their own at Carthage; the rest of Italy at Mil­laine; France at Arles or Lions; Germany at Vienna; Brittaine was removed far enough out of this account.

But this appears most clearly in the case between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Cyprian Bishops, The case between the Patri­arch of An­tioch and Cyprian Bi­shops. sentenced in the general Councel of Ephesus. The Patriarch of Antioch challenged the ordination of the Cyprian Bishops, and consequently a Patri­archal [Page 94] Jurisdiction over them; for all other Rights do follow the right of ordi­nation. They denied both his right of ordination and jurisdiction, The diffe­rence was heard. The witnesses were exa­mined for matter of fact, And a sentence was given▪ not onely in favour of the Cy­prian Bishops, but of all others which were in the same condition. Among which num­ber were our Brittannique Churches, as shall evidently appear in this ensuing dis­course.

But first let us listen to the words of the Councel; Conc. Ephes. part. 1. Act. 7. Since common diseases do need greater remedies, because they bring greater damage; If it be not the ancient custome that the Bishops of Antioch ordain in Cyprus, as the Councel is sufficiently satisfied; The Cy­prian Praelates shall hold their rights untouched and unviolated, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers, and the ancient custome, ordaining their own Bishops. And let the same be obser­ved in other Diocesses, and in all Provinces, That no Bishop occupy another Province, which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him, or his predecessors. If any do occupy another Province, or subject it by force, let him restore it, that the Canons of the Fa­thers be not sleighted, nor pride creep into the Church under the praetext of worldly power, lest by little and little that liberty be lost which Christ purchased for us with his blood. Therefore it hath pleased the Holy Synod, [Page 95] that every Province injoy its rights and customs unviolated, which it had from the beginning. These words from the beginning [...], are twice repeated. It is no marvel if some addicted to the interest of Rome have gone about by Slight of hand, but very unsuccessefully to shuffle this Canon out of the Acts of the Councel. If the Fathers in that Holy and oecumenical Councel, were so tender and sensible of pride creeping into the Church in those daies, and of the dan­ger to lose their Christian liberty in the case of the Bishop of Antioch, who neither pre­tended Divine right, nor universal Juris­diction, nor superiority above Councels, what would they not have said or done in this present case of the Bishop of Rome, who challengeth not onely the right of or­daining, but the grace of ordination, and Soveraign Jurisdiction, not over Cyprus on­ly, but over the whole Christian world; not from custom, or Canons, or edicts, but from the institution of Christ, who makes all the validity of the decrees of those oecumenical Councels which his Predecessours received and reverenced as the Gospell, to depend upon his own confirmation?

To apply this home to the question. Greg. L. 1. Ep. 24. The Generall Councel of Ephesus declared, that no Bishop should occupie any Province, The case of the Cyprian Bishops ap­plyed. which before that Councell and from the beginning, had not been under the Juris­diction of him or his Predecessours; And [Page 96] that if any Patriarch usurped any Jurisdicti­on over a free Province, he should quit it, for so it pleased, not the Pope, but the Holy Sy­nod, that every province should injoy its an­cient rights pure and inviolate. Now if it shall evidently appear, that the Bishops of Rome never exercised any manner of Ju­risdiction over the Britannique Churches from the beginning, no nor yet before the general Councel of Ephesus, nor for six hundred years after Christ, that is, untill they themselves had disowned their Patri­archal right, when Pope Boniface the third who entred into the Roman See about three years after the death of Gregory the great, obtained from Phocas an usurping Emperour to be universal Bishop, that is to say, an usurping Monarch over the Church, which fell out so soon after the arrivall of Austin in England, that there wanted time to have settled the Roman Pa­triarchate in Brittain, though the Brittons had been as willing to receive it, as they were averse from it: and if no true general Councel since that time hath ever subjected Brittain unto the Roman Court; Then the case is clear, that Rome can pretend no right over Brittain, without their own con­sents, nor any further, nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige them­selves; Then the subsequent and violent usurpations of the Roman Bishops cannot render them Bonae fidei possessores, lawfull [Page 97] owners, but that they are alwaies bound to quit their incroachments, and the Brit­tannique Churches, and those who derive by succession from them, are alwaies free to vindicate and reassume their ancient rights and priviledges.

In this controversy by law the burthen of the proof ought to rest upon them, The proof in this cause ought to rest upon our adver­saries, who affirm a right and challenge a Jurisdiction; not upon us who deny it. Men are not put to prove negatives. Let them produce their Registers, and shew for the first six hundred years what Ecclesiastical Courts the Ro­man Bishops or their Legates have held in Brittain, what causes they have removed from thence to Rome, upon appeals, what sentences given in Brittain they have re­pealed there, what British subjects they have excommunicated, or summoned to ap­pear at Rome; let them shew what Bishop­ricks they have conferred in Brittain in those daies, what British Bishops did then intitle themselves to their Bishopricks, by the Grace of God and of the Apostolique See; let them declare to the world how many of our British Primates or Patriarchs of York▪ London, or Caerleon, have constantly, or at all repaired to Rome, to be ordained, or have received Licenses, or dispensations thence for their ordination at home, or else­where, for ordinationis jus caetera jura sequun­tur, He who is necessarily by law obliged to have recourse to a forraign Prelate for [Page 98] his ordination, is thereby implyed to be inferiour or subject to his ordainer. If they can say nothing to any of these points, they may disclaime their Patriarchall right in Brittain, and hold their peace for ever.

The reasons why I set York before Lon­don in the order of our British Patriarchs or Primates are these; First, because I find their names subscribed in that order in the Councel of Arles, held in the year 314. consisting as some say of 200. as others say of 600. Bishops, convocated by Constantine the great, before the first Councel of Nice, to hear and determine the appeal of the Donatists, from the sentence of the Impe­riall delegates, whereof Melchiades the Bi­shop of Rome was one. It were a strange sight in these daies to see a Pope turn Le­gate to the Emperours in a cause of Ecclesi­asticall cognisance. Secondly, for the same reason that Rome and Constantinople in those daies of the Roman Puissance were dignified above all other Churches, because they were then the seats of the Emperours. York was then an Imperial City, the Me­tropolis of the chief Britannick Province, called at that time maxima Caesariensis, where Severus the Emperour died, and had his fu­nerall pile upon Severs hill, a place adjoyn­ing to that City, where Constantine the great was born, in domo Regali vocata Pertenna, in the Royal Palace, whereof some poor [Page 99] remainders are yet to be seen, then called Pertenna, now a small part of it called vul­garly Bederna, a very easy mistake, if we consider that the Brittish Pronounce P. for B. and T. like D. situate near Christs Church in Curia Regis or in the Kings Court, on the one hand, and extending it self near to St. Helens Church upon the walls, now demo­lished, on the other hand.

Although their silence alone to my former demand, (at least of so many whom I have seen that have written upon this Subject) be a sufficient conviction of them, and a sufficient vindication of us, yet for further manifestation of the truth; Let us consider first, The Brit­tannique Church an­cienter then the Roman. that if we compare the ages and origi­nals of the Roman and Britannique Churches, we shall find that the Britannique is the more ancient and Elder Sister to the Roman it self; Gild. de e [...]id. et conq [...]. Brit. The Britannique Church being planted by Ioseph of Arimathea in the raign of Tiberius Caesar: where as it is confessed that Saint Peter came not to Rome, to lay the foundation of that Church, untill the second year of Claudius, secundo Claudii anno in Italiam venit. So if we look to the beginning, Plat in vita Sancti. Petri. Bar. an. 44. according to the direction of the Councel of Ephesus, the Britannique Church in its first original was free from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and Court of Rome, where there was neither Bishop, nor Court, nor Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction at that day.

[Page 100] Secondly, The Brit­tannique Churches sided with the Eastern against the Roman. that it continued free in ensuing ages appears evidently by that opposition which the Church of Britain maintained against the Church of Rome, siding with the Eastern Churches about the question of those times, concerning the observation of Easter, and the administration of Bap­tisme, wherein Austine about the six hun­dreth year laboured to conform them, but in vain. Is it credible that the whole Brit­tish and Scottish Church should so unani­mously have dissented from Rome, for ma­ny hundred years together, if they had been subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop, as of their lawfull Patriarch, or that the Bishop of Rome in all that time should never so much as question them for it, if they had been his Subjects? Even then when Pope Victor durst attempt to deny or withdraw his communion from all the Asi­atick Churches, about the same businesse. Neither were the Brittish Churches at last conformed to Rome by any Patriarchall power, but by many conferences, by the necessity of their civill affaires, and by long tract of time, some sooner, some later. A long tract of time indeed, when some in the most Septentrionall parts of these Provinces were not reduced until a little before the late reformation.

Thirdly, among the principal priviledges of patriarchall power is the right of ordinati­on. British Bi­shops or­dained at home. That all Metropolitans at least should [Page 101] either be ordained by the Patriarch; or by License from the Patriarch.

This appears clearly in the dispute between the Patriarch of Antioch and the Cyprian Bishops; But where the Bishops were [...], and [...] independent upon, not subject unto any forrain Prelate there, they ordained at their own pleasures, needed no License. Such were our British Primates ordained alwaies, or ordinarily at Rome, according to the Cyprian priviledges, cre­ating new Bishopricks, ordaining new Bi­shops at their own pleasures, without gi­ving any account to Rome. So we read of St. Telaus, who had been driven out of his own Country by an Epidemical sicknesse for a long time, Reg. Land. apud Vsh. d [...]prim. that at his return he conse­crated and ordained Bishops as he thought fit. That he made one Hismael Bishop of St. Davids. Eccl. Brit. p. 56. And in like manner advanced many other men of the same order to the same degree, sending them throughout the country, and dividing the parishes for the best accommodation of the Cler­gy and of the People. And if there were no other proofe of our exemption but onely the small number of the Bishops that were ordained by all the succeeding Popes for about the first three hundred years untill the death of Marcellinus: It were suf­ficient to shew that the Bishops of Rome in those daies had little or nothing to do out of their owne Province, [Page 102] and that their jurisdiction extended no­thing near so far as Britain.

Saint Peter Ordained but three in his supposed five and twenty years, that is Linus and Cletus, Plat. ut sacerdotale Ministeri­um Romano populo & advenis benè sentientibus exhiberent, and Clement, to whom he bequea­thed his Episcopal Chair. Linus but eleven, Clement but fifteen, Anacletus but six, Evaristus but five, Alexander but five, Sixtus but four, &c. These were few enough for their own Province, and none to spare for Britain. In the whole term of three hundred years there were few above two hundred Bishops Ordained at Rome. Italy alone may brag well near of as many Bishops at one time, as many succeeding Popes did ordain in all their ages. Let them not tell us of the scarcity of Christians in those dayes. The writings of Tertullian and Saint Cyprian, and the Councels held within the time limited, do evince the con­trary. No, the first badge of their Patriar­chal authority in Britain was sending of the Pall, as the onely badge during the times of the Britons and Saxons; And the first Pall that came into Britain was after six hundred years.

But this doth yet appear much more clearly from the answer of Dionothus the Reverend and learned Abbot of Bangor, The an­swer of Dionothus. which according to the manner of those times was an University or Seminary of [Page 103] Learning and piety among the Britons, and he the well deserving Rector of it, made in his own name, and in the name of the Bri­tons, when they pressed him to submit to the Romaen Bishop as his Patriarch, that he knew no obedience due to him whom they cal­led the Pope, Spelm. Conc. An. 601. but the obedience of love; And that under God they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerleon.

Observe first, what strangers the Bri­tons were to the Papacy, That man whom you call the Pope. Secondly, that they acknow­ledged no subjection or subordination, no obedience whatsoever due from them to Rome, but onely the reciprocal duty of love, that was just the same that Rome did owe to them. Thirdly, that under God, that is immediatly without any Forrein Prelate or Patriarch intervening, they were to be govern­ed by the Bishop of Caerleon, as their onely Primate and Patriarch. Which priviledge continued to the succeeding Bishops of that See for many ages afterwards, saving that the Archiepiscopal Chair was removed from Caerleon to St. Davids in the Raign of King Arthur. And lastly, observe the time when this answer was made, after the first six hundred years were expired. So it is a full demonstrative convincing proof for the whole term prefixed.

But lest any man should cavil and say, Confirme by two British Synods. that Dionothus was but one man, and that the body of the British Clergy might be of [Page 104] another mind; that which followes strikes the question dead: That Austin, Saint Gre­gories Legate, proposing three things to the Britons. First that they should submit to the Roman Bishop. Secondly, that they should conforme to the customes of the Ro­man Province about the observation of Easter, and the administration of Baptisme. And Lastly, that they should joyn with him in Preaching to the Saxons: all the British Clergy assembled themselves together, Spel. eon. an. 601. Bi­shops and Priests in two several Synods, one after another, Galt. mon. l. 2. c. 12. to deliberate hereupon, and after mature consideration, they re­jected all his propositions Synodically, Beda & omnes alii. Resp. Greg. ad. 8. quest. and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms. Insomuch as St. Austin was necessitated to return over the Seas, to obtain his own con­secration, and after his return to consecrate the Saxon Bishops alone, without the assi­stance of any other Bishops. They refused indeed to their own cost, twelve hundred innocent Monks of Bangor, Bed. l. 2. c. 2. shortly after lost their lives for it. Rome was ever builded in blood; Howsoever these words [quam­vis Augustino prius mortuo] have since been forged and inserted into venerable Bede, to palliate the matter, which are wanting in the Saxon Copy. Ant. Brit p. 48. The concurring Testi­monies of all our Historiographers witness­ing the absolute and unanimous refusal of the Britons to submit to Rome, and the mat­ter [Page 105] of fact it self, do confirm this for an un­doubted truth beyond all exception. So clear a truth it is, that the British Churches for the first three hundred years neither ought nor paid any subjection to Rome. Whence might well proceed that answer of Elutherius to King Lucius (if that Epistle be not counterfeit) when he desired him to send over a Copy of the Roman Lawes, That he should chuse a Law [Eccle­siastical] out of holy writ by the Councel of his Kingdom, that is principally of his Bishops, for (saith he) you are the Vicar of Christ in your Kingdom. The same in effect which is conteined in the Lawes of Edward the Confessor. Hence it is that both our Hi­stories and our Lawes do stile our Arch­bishops Pri [...]ates, Malm. prol. ad. lib. de gest. pont. which in the Language of the Primitive times signifies as much as Patriarchs. Aug. Glos. juris C. Cle­ros dist: 21. And sometimes call them ex­presly by the very name of Patriarchs it self. Hence Vrban the second intertained and welcomed Anselm our Archbishop of Canter­bury into the Councel of Barre, tanquam alterius orbis Papam, as the Pope of another world; Or as others relate the passage, as the Apostle of another world, and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced.

CHAP. VI.
That the King and Church of England had both sufficient authority and suf­ficient grounds to withdraw their obe­dience from Rome, and did it with due moderation.

SO from the persons who made the se­paration, from the Lawes and Statutes of our Realm which warranted the separation, and from the ancient Li­berties and priviledges of the Britannick Churches, Soveraign Princes have power to alter whatso­ever is of humane institution in Ecclesia­stical disci­pline. I proceed to my fourth ground drawn from the Imperial prerogatives of our Soveraign Princes; That though we should wave all the other advantages, yet they had power to alter in the external discipline and regiment of the Church, what­soever was of humane institution, for the benefit and advantage of the body poli­tick.

Doctor Holden proposeth the case right by way of Objection, Append. de Schism. Art. 4. p. 526. But peradventure the Protestants will say, that the King or supream Senate of every Kingdome or Common-Wealth have power to make Lawes and statutes, by which, either directly, or at least indirectly, as well the Clergy as the Laity of that Kingdom or Common-Wealth are bound to reject all forrain Iurisdiction, superiority and dependance. And [Page 107] that his Legislative power is essentially annexed to every Kingdom and Commonwealth, seeing that otherwise they cannot prevent those dangers which may spring and issue from that fountain, to their destruction and ruine.

The Protestants do say indeed without all peradventure, upon that very ground which is alledged in the objection. Neither do the Protestants want the suffrage of Ro­man Catholicks therein. Suar. l. 3. de prim. summi Pontificis cap. 1. num. 4. Because humane nature (saith one) cannot be destitute of neces­sary remedies to its own preservation. And another, To whom a Kingdome is granted, of necessity all things are esteemed to be granted without which a Kingdome cannot be governed. Morl. in Emp. jur. p. 1. tit. 2. Citati à Sanc. cla [...]. in Art. 37. And a Kingdom cannot be governed, unlesse the King enjoy this power even over Clerks, &c. Necessary remedies are no remedies, unlesse they be just, but worse then the disease. And being just, the Subject is obliged to active obedience.

But let us see what the Doctour pleads in answer to his own objection. Append. de Schism. p. 527. First he pas­seth by the native power of civil Soveraign Empire, which ought not to have been omitted; for therein consists the main force of the argument. But as to the Ecclesiasti­cal part, he saith he could demonstrate clear­ly, if it were needful, that the dependence of Bishops, and other Orthodox Christians upon the Pope, being rightly conceived as it is, and as it is really necessary, according to the certain and true princ [...]ples of Catholick Religion, doth [Page 108] not bring any the least shadow of danger to the Common-Wealth, though in hostility with the Pope, or of a different communion from the Pope. If we lived in Plato's Common-Wealth, where every one did his duty, this reason were of more force. Far be it from us to imagine, that the right exercise of any lawful power, grounded upon the certain and true principles of Catholick Religion, should be dangerous to any Society. But this is not our case. What if the Bishops and Court of Rome have swerved from those certain and true principles of Catholick Re­ligion? or have abused that power which was committed to their trust by Christ, or by his Church? Or have usurped more au­thority then did belong unto them? Or have Engrossed all Episcopal Jurisdiction to themselves, leaving the Bishops of the Land but Cyphers in their own Diocesses? Or have hazarded the utter ruine and de­struction of the Church by their Simony, extortion, provisions, reservations, and ex­emptions? Or have obtruded new unwar­rantable Oathes upon the Subjects, incon­sistent with their allegiance? Or have drained the Kingdome of its treasure by pecuniary avaricious arts? Or have chal­lenged to themselves a negative voice against the right heir of the Crown; Or authority to depose a crowned King, and absolve his Subjects from their Oathes and allegiance to their Soveraignes? And have shewed [Page 109] themselves incorrigible in all these things. This is our case. In any one of these cases, much more in them all conjoyned, it is not onely lawful, but very necessary for Christian Princes to reform such grosse abuses, and to free themselves and their Subjects from such a tyrannical yoke, if they can by the directi­on of a general Councel, if not of a Provin­cial. And it is not Schisme but Loyalty in their Subjects to yeild obedience.

The same Author proceeds, P. 528. That no civil power how Soveraign soever can correct the fun­damental articles of Christian faith, Protestants in their re­formation have alte­red no Ar­ticles of Religion nor sacred rites, nor violated Charity. nor pervert the order of sacred rites received by universal tradition as instituted by Christ, nor justifie any thing by their Edicts which is against Christian charity. To all this we do readily assent, and never did presume to arrogate to our selves, or to exercise any such power. But still this is wide from our case. What if the Bishop of Rome have presumed to coyn and attem­pted to obtrude upon us new Articles of Faith, as he hath in his new Creed, and to pervert the sacred rites instituted by Christ, as in his with-holding the Cup from the Laity? Then without doubt not we, but he is guilty of the Schisme; Then it is lawful to separate from him in his innovations, without incurring the crime of Schisme. This is laid down by the Author himself as an evident conclusion, and we thank him for it; p. 533. That it is necessary for every Christian to acknowledge no authority under heaven, either [Page 110] Ecclesiastical or Civil, that hath power to abro­gate those things that are revealed and instituted by Christ, or to determine those things which are opposite unto them, quod Schismatis origo foret, which should be the original of Schisme. But where that Author infers as a corollary from the former Proposition, p. 528. That no Edict of a Soveraign Prince can Iustifie Schisme, be­cause all Schisme is destructive to Christian charity; I must crave leave with all due respect to his person, to his learning, to his moderation, and to his charity, to rectifie that mistake. If by Schisme he understand criminal Schisme, that which he saith is most true; That were not onely to Justifie the wicked, which is an abhomination to the Lord, but to justifie wickednesse it self: But every separation or Schisme taken in a large sence is not criminal, nor at all destructive to Christian Charity. Sometimes it is a necessary, Christian, charitable duty. In all the cases that I have supposed above, and shall prove hereafter, they that make the Separation continue Catholiques, and they that give the cause become the Schisma­tiques.

But it may be urged, That this proceeds from the merit of the cause, not from the authority of the Soveraign Prince.

I answer, It proceeds from both. Three things are necessary to make a publique re­formation lawful; Just grounds, due mode­ration, and sufficient authority. There [Page 111] may be just grounds without sufficient au­thority, and sufficient authority without just grounds; and both sufficient authority and just grounds without due moderation. But where these three things concur, it justi­fies the reformation before God and man, and renders that separation lawful, which otherwise were Schismatical.

Lastly, p. 530. it is alledged, That the power of the Soveraign Magistrate is not so absolute that he can command any thing at his pleasure, so as to oblige his Subjects to obedience, in things re­pugnant to the Law of nature, or the positive Law of God. No Orthodox Christian can doubt of this truth. Augustine The authority of the inferiour ceaseth, where the Superiour de­clareth his pleasure to the contrary. Nor swer­ved from the Law of nature, or positive Lawes of God. Da veniam Imperator, tu carcerom, ille gehennam minatur, Pardon me O Emperour, thou threa­tenest me with imprisonment, but God Almighty with hell-fire. But this is nothing to our case, neither the Law of Nature, nor the Law of God doth injoyn Brittish Christians to buy pardons, and indulgences, and dispen­sations, and Bulls, and Palls, and priviledges at Rome, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the Realm. Boniface the eighth by his Bull exempted the University of Oxford from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Ex Archi­vis Turris Londinensis citat author Antiquit. whereupon did grow a contro­versie between Thomas Arundel Archbishop, Acad. Can­tab. and the University; And the said Bull was decreed to be void by two succeeding [Page 112] Kings, Richard the second, and Henry the fourth in Parliament, as being obtained in praejudicium Coronae suae, & Legum & consue­tudinum Regni sui enervationem to the preju­dice of his Imperial crown, and to the weakning of the Lawes and Customes of his Realm.

But this disobedience to the decrees of Soveraign Princes must be joyned with pas­sive obedience, In cases doubtful we may not disobey the King and the Lawes. Exod. 1. 17. 1 Sam. 22. 17. it must be onely when and where their commands are evidently unjust, such as Pha [...]aohs commanding the Hebrew Midwives to kill all the Male children, or Sauls injoyning his guard to slay the Priests of the Lord, or like N [...]buchadnezzars ido­latrous edict, charging all men to fall down and worship his golden Image. For other­wise if the case be doubtful, it is a rule in Case divinity, Subditis tenentur in favorem Legis judicare, Subjects are bound to judge in favour of the Law; Otherwise they run into a certain crime of disobedience, for fear of an uncertain. A War may be unjust in the Prince, and yet the Souldier be guiltlesse. Nor is the Subject obliged to sift the grounds of his Soveraigns commands too narrowly. It happens often, that reum facit Principem iniquitas imperandi, August. Unjust commands may be justly obeyed▪ innocentem subditum ordo serviendi, The Prince may be unjust in his commands, and yet the Subject innocent in his obedience. Take the case at the worst, it must be doubtful at the least, the Popes Soveraignty and the Jurisdiction of the Roman Court being rejected by three parts [Page 113] of the Christian world, and so unanimously shaken off by three Kingdoms. And in such a case, who is fittest to be Judge, the Pope, the People, or the King; Not the Pope, he is the person accused, And frustra expectatur cujuslibet authoritas contra seipsum, It is in vain to expect that one should imploy his authority against himself. Not the people; would a Judge take it well, that a Gaoler should detain the Prisoner from execution, untill he were satisfied of the justice of his sentence? Or a Pilot that he may not move his Rudder according to the al­terable face of the heavens, but at the dis­cretion of the ordinary Marriners? No, whensoever any question hath been moved between any kingdom or Republick of what Communion soever and the Court of Rome, concerning the liberties and priviledges of the one, or the extortions and incroach­ments of the other, they have evermore assumed the last Judicature to themselves, Pr [...]nces are obliged to protect their sub­jects from the [...]yran­ny of Ec­clesiastical Judges. Pa [...]s. lait &c. Citati a Sancta Clara in Art 37. p. 420. 421. as of right it doth belong unto them.

The Romanists themselves do acknow­ledge that Soveraign Princes by the Law of God and nature, not only may, but are in justice obliged to oppose the tyranny of Ecclesiastical Judges, and to protect and free their subjects from their violence and oppression. Parsons himself wondreth that any man should deny this power to Kings in their own kingdomes. But we are fully satisfied and assured, that that universal [Page 114] power which the Pope claimes by Divine right over all Christians, and particularly over the Britannique Churches without their consents; And much more that Juris­diction which de facto he did, or at least would have exercised there, (and lesse then which he would not go) to the destruction of their natural and Christian liberties and priviledges, was and is a tyrannical and op­pressive yoak. If all Christians were as well satisfied of the truth of this our assum­ption as we are, this controversie were at an end. And thus far all Roman Catholicks not interessed, nor prepossessed with preju­dice, do accord fully with us, that by whom­soever Papal power was given, whether by Christ, or his Apostles, or the Fathers of the Church in succeeding ages, it was given for edification not for destruction. And that the Roman Court in later dayes hath sought to impose grievous oppressive and intolerable burthens upon their sub­jects, which it is lawful for them to shake off, without regarding their censure, as we shall see in the next proposition. But because all are not so well satisfied about the just extent of Papal authority and pow­er, we must search a little higher.

Secondly, we do both agree, that Sove­raign Princes may by enabled, and autho­rized, either by concession or by prescrip­tion for time immemoriall, Sancta Cla­ra p. 146. & 417. (perhaps it were more properly said by vertue of their [Page 115] Soveraign authority over the whole body politique, whereof the Clergy are a part) [...]o exercise all external acts of Ecclesi­astical coercive Jurisdiction, Kings may exercise ex­ernal acts of Ecclesi­astical ju­risdiction by fit dele­gates. by them­selves, or at least by fit delegates, praecipiendo suis subditis Sacerdotibus, ut excommunicent rebelles & contumaces. And this is asserted in the case of Abbesses, which being wo­men are lesse capable of any spiritual Juris­diction. The truth is, that as all Ecclesi­astical Courts, and all Ecclesiastical coer­cive jurisdiction did flow at first either from the Bounty and goodnesse of Soveraign Princes to the Church, or from their conni­vence, or from the voluntary consent and free submission of Christians; Volenti non fit injuria, consent takes away errour, (I ex­cept alwayes that jurisdiction which is purely spiritual, and an essential part of the power of the Keies, whereof Emperours and Kings are not capable.) So whensoever the Weal-publick and the common safety of their people doth require it, for advance­ment of publick peace and tranquillity, and for the greater ease and convenience of the subject in general▪ according to the Vicis­situde and conversion of humane affairs, and the change of Monarchies, they may up­on well grounded experience in a National Synod or Councel, more advisedly retract what their predecessours had advisedly granted or permitted. And alter the face and rules of the external discipline of the [Page 116] Church, in all such things as are but of hu­mane right, when they become hurtful or impeditive of a greater good: in which cases their subjects may with good consci­ence, and are bound in duty to conforme themselves to their Lawes. Otherwise King­doms and Societies should want necessary remedies for their own preservation, which is granted by both parties to be an absur­dity.

Weigh all the parts of Ecclesiastical dis­cipline, The Em­perours of old did the same. and consider what one there is which Christian Emperours of old did not either exercise by themselves, or by their delegates, or did not regulate by their Lawes, or both, concerning the privi­ledges and revenues of holy Church, the calling of Councels, the presiding in Coun­cels, the dissolving of Councels, the con­firming of Councels, concerning holy Or­ders, concerning the patronage of, and nomination to Ecclesiastical benefices and dignities, concerning the Jurisdiction, the suspension, deposition, and ordering of Bishops, and Priests, and Monks, and gene­rally all Persons in holy orders, concerning Appeales, concerning Religion and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof, concerning the Creeds or common Symbols of faith, concerning Heresie, Schisme, Judaisme, the suppression of Sects, against Swearing, Cursing, Blaspheming, Prophanenesse, and Idolatry, concerning Sacraments, Sanctu­aries, [Page 117] Simony, Marriages, Divorces, and generally all things which are of Ecclesi­astical cognisance, wherein he that desires satisfaction, and particularly to see how the coercive power of Ecclesiastical Courts and Judges did flow from the gracious conces­sions of Christian Princes, may (if he be not too much possessed with preju­dice) resolve himself, by reading the first Book of the Code, the Authentiques or Novels of Iustinian the Emperour, and the Capitulars of Charles the great, and his successours Kings of France. We have been requested, said Iustinian, by Menna the Archbishop of this City, Novel. 83. beloved of God, and universal Patriarch, to grant this priviledge to the most reverend Clerkes, &c. in pecuniary causes referring them first to the Bishop, and if he could not compose or determine the difference, then to the secular Judge; And in criminal causes if the crime were civil, to the civil Magistrate, if Ecclesiastical, to the Bishop. By the Councel of our Bishops and Nobles (said Charles the great) we have Ordained Bishops throughout the Cities, Lib. 5. ca. pit. (that is, we have commanded and authorized it to be done.) And do decree to assemble a Synod every year, that in our presence the Cano­nical decrees, and Lawes of the Church may be restored. I beseech you, what did our King Henry and the Church of England more at the reformation?

It is true, Soveraign Princes are not said [Page 118] properly to make Canons, because they do not prescribe them under pain of Excom­munication, or suspension, or degradation, or any spirituall punishment. But to affirm that they cannot make Ecclesiasticall con­stitutions, under a civill pain, or that they cannot (especially with the advise and con­currence of their Clergy assembled in a Na­tional Synod) reform errours and abuses, and remedy incroachments and usurpati­ons, and innovations, either in faith or di­scipline, and regulate the new Canons, or Customes of Intruders and Upstarts, by the old Canons of the primitive Fathers, is con­trary to the sense and practise of all anti­quity. King Solomon deposed Abiathar from the high Priesthood and put Sadoc in his place. Popes con­vented, im­pris [...]ned, deposed by Emperou [...]s. Nor want we Presidents of Popes themselves who have been convented be­fore Emperours, as Sixtus the third before Valentinian, though Platina mince the matter a little too much, (damnatur Bassus calumni­ator iniquus annuente Valentiniano &c.) Leo the third before Charles the great. That have been banished by Emperours, as Li­berius unjustly banished by Constantius, and more unjustly restored, Sylverius justly banished by Iustinian. That have been im­prisoned by Soveraign Princes, as Pope Iohn the first by Theodoric. That have been deposed by them, As Iohn the twelfth by Otho the great, and Gregory the sixth by Henry the second, Henricus secundus in Itali­am [Page 119] cum magno exercitu veniens, Platin. in Gr [...]g. 6. habita Syno­do, cum Benedictum novum, Sylvestrum terti­um, Gregorium sextum, tanquam tria teterrima monstra abdicare se magistratu coegisset &c. Henry the second coming into Italy with a great army, having convocated a Synod, when he had compelled Benedict the Ninth, Sylvester the third, and Gregory the sixth, as three most filthy monsters to quit their government, he cre­ated Syndeger Bishop of Bamberge, afterwards Clement the second Pope. Of old when any Schisme did infest the Roman Church, (as I think no See in the World hath been oftner rent asunder by pretenders to the Papacy) the Emperours when they pleased did assume unto themselves the cognisance thereof, and determine the succession either by themselves, Plat. in Bon. 1. Plat. in Sym. or by their Exarch, or De­legates, as Honorius between Boniface the first and Eulalius, Theodoric the King be­tween Symmachus and Laurentius. The Exarch of Ravenna between Sergius the first and Paschalis. Otho the third between Iohn the Seventeenth and Gregory the fifth. But when these imperiall acts are done in Sy­nods, they are more authentique and more conform to Antiquity.

Thirdly, our learned and ingenuous coun­tryman Davenport, under the name of Fran­ciscus à Sancta Clara, (far be it from me to censure Christian charity and moderation for lukewarmnesse, or Atheistical neutrality, like those whose chief religion consists in [Page 120] crying up a faction, I rather wish he had been more universally acquainted with our English Doctrine) in his paraphrastical ex­position of our English Articles, to this que­stion, P. 425. How and whether it be lawful in points of faith to appeal from the Pope, and to decline his Iudgment, cites the resolution of Gerson in these words following, Hoc etiam practicatum est per quoscunque Reges et Principes, &c. This also hath been practised by all Kings & Princes, who have withdrawn themselves from the obedi­ence of those whom such or such did Iudge to be Popes, which substractions neverthelesse were approved by the sacred Councell of Constance, some expressely, An. 1110▪ some implicitly. The most Christian King Lewis the twelfth convo­cated a Nationall Councell of the French Church at Towers, The Coun­cel of Tow­ers allowes to with­draw obe­dience from the Pope in certain ca­ses. wherein sundry Articles were proposed, deliberated of, and con­cluded, touching these affaires. The third Article was, that if the Pope should invade another Prince in an hostile manner, and excite other Princes to invade his territo­ries, whether that Prince might not lawful­ly withdraw himself from the obedience of such a Pope; where observe, that though this case alone be specified, as being fitted to that present controversy between the King of France and the Pope; yet all other cases of the same nature or consequence are included, Conc. Turon. R [...]sp. ad Art. 3. And conclusum est per Concilium principem posse ab obedien [...]ia Papae se subducere ac substrahere; non tamen in totum et indi­stincte, [Page 121] sed pro tuitione tantum ac defensione jurium suorum temporalium. It was concluded by the Councel, that the Prince might withdraw himself from the obedience of the Pope; yet not totally, nor indistinctly, but onely for the defence of his temporal rights. The fourth propositi­on was, when such a substraction was law­fully made, what the Prince and his sub­jects, more particularly Prelates and other Ecclesiastiques, ought to do in such things, for which they had formerly no recourse to the Apostolique See. Resp. ad Art. 4. And conclusum est per concilium servandum esse jus commune, anti­quum, et pragmaticam Sanctionem regni, ex deeretis Sacro-Sancti concilii Basiliensis de­sumptam. It was concluded by the Councell, that the ancient common right was to be pre­served, and the pragmaticall Sanction of the Kingdom, taken out of the Decrees of the Sa­cred Councell of Basil. The eighth propo­sition was, if the Pope proceeding unjustly, and by force should pronounce any censures against such a Prince, whether they ought to be obeied. Resp. ad. Art. 8. And conclusum est unanimi­ter per concilium talem sententiam nullam esse, nec de jure vel alio quocunque modo ligare. It was concluded unanimously by the Councell, that such a Sentence was of no force, not bind­ing in law, or any other way; which opinion or resolution of theirs the above-men [...]ti­oned Authour saith, he ought not to con­demne whilest the Church doth tolerate it.

[Page 122]Behold a principall cause of the separation of the English Church from the Pope, the usurpations and incroachments of the Ro­man Court upon the Politicall rights of the Crown, which they would not let go, until they were quite shaken off.

Anthonius de Rosellis a zealous assertour of the Papall authority concludes, that the Pope being an heretick, or an Apostate, though but in secret, it is lawful (without any sentence or declaration preceding) for any of his Subjects that know it, In tract. de potest. P­apae et Impe­rat. Especially for Kings and Prin­ces, to depart from him, and withdraw them­selvs from under his power by that naturall right which they have to defend them­selves.

This may well be doubted of in the case of private persons, before sentence, by those who believe him to be constituted by Christ the Soveraign Monarch of the Universall Church; But in the case of Soveraign Prin­ces with Provincial Councells, when Gene­rall Councells cannot be had, and much more when General Councells have given their sentence formerly in the case (as the Councells of Constance and Basil have done concerning the Papacy,) Princes may reform new Ca­n [...]ns by old. And with us who are sufficiently resolved that St. Peter had no preheminence above his fellowes, but onely principality of order and the begin­ing of unity; And that whatsoever power the Bishop of Rome hath more then any other Bishop, it is meerly from the customes [Page 123] of the Catholique Church, or from the Ca­nons of the Fathers, or from the Edicts of Princes, and may be taken away, upon suf­ficient grounds, by equall authority to that by which it was acquired; I say in this our case there can be no doubt at all. And yet it can much lesse be doubted whether a So­veraign Prince with a National Synod may remedy the incroachments and usurpations of the Roman Court, within his own domi­nions, or exclude new Creeds and new Ar­ticles of faith, Part. 2. Act. 6. C. 7. de. resol. fid. l. 1. C. 8. P. 152. lately devised and obtruded, contrary to the determination of the Gene­ral Councel of Ephesus, of which let us hear what is Doctor Holdens opinion, Notum est inter Catholicos omnes tanquans axioma cer­tissimum, &c. It is known that all Catholicks do hold this as a most certain axiome, that nothing ought or may be maintained for a Christian re­vealed truth, but that which was received by our Ancestors, and delivered from one genera­tion to another by continued succession from the times of the Apostles. This is all that we have done, and done it with due submission to the highest Judge of Ecclesiastical con­troversies upon earth, that is a general Councel. If the Court of Rome will be humorous, like little children, who because they cannot have some toy that they have a mind to, do cast away all that their parents have given them, we cannot help it.

Over and above all the former grounds [Page 124] which the Romanists themselves do in some sort acknowledge. I propose this further, that Patriarchal power in external things is subject and subordinate to Imperial. Patria [...]hal power sub­ject to Im­p [...]rial. When Mauritius the Emperour had made a Law that no Souldier should turn Monk, untill his warfare were accomplished, St. Gregory Bishop of Rome disliked the Law, and represented his sense of it to the Em­perour, but withall according to his duty published it, Lib. 2. Ep. 61. Ego quidem missioni subjectus eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitto, & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti deo minime concordat, Ecce per suggestionis meae paginam dominis nunciavi; utrobique ergo quae debui exolvi, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro deo quid sensi minime tacui. I being subject to your command have transmitted your Law to be published through diverse parts of the world. And because the Law itself is not pleasing to Almighty God; I have repre­sented my opinion thereof to my Lords; where­fore I have performed my duty on both sides, in yeelding obedience to the Emperour, and not con­cealing what I thought for God. A most rare and Christian president of that great Patri­arch, and fit for our observation and imita­tion in these dayes; He acknowledged the Emperour to be his Lord, and himself to be subject to his commands. And though no humane invention can warrant an act that is Morally evil in it self, yet if it be onely impeditive of a greater good, as that blessed [Page 125] Saint did take this Law to be, the command of a Soveraign doth weigh down the scale, and obligeth a Patriarch to obedience in a matter that concerns Religion. How much more doth the command of the English Monarch and the English Church disoblige an English subject from a forrein Patriarch, whose Original right is but humane at the most, and in the case in question between Rome and England none at all.

But to come up yet closer to the question. Emperours have changed Patriar­cha [...]s. The general Councels of Constantinople and Chalcedon, with the presence, concurrence and confirmation of Theodosius the great & Martian the Emperours, notwithstanding the opposition of the Roman Bishop by his Legates, Conc. Const can. 3. Conc. Chalc. Can. 8. did advance the Bishop of Con­stantinople from being a poore Suffragan un­der the Metropolitan of Heraclea, to be the second Patriarch, and equal in dignity power and all manner of priviledges, to the first, and assigned unto him for his Patriar­chate Pontus, and Asia the lesse, and Thracia, and some other countries, part of which territories they substracted from the obedi­ence of the Roman Bishop, at least over which the Roman Bishops challenged Juris­diction, and part from other Patriarchs. And the reason of this alteration was the same for which Caesarea of old was a long time preferred before Hierusalem, and Alexandria before Antioch, and Rome before all others, to conform the Ecclesiasticall [Page 126] regiment to the Politicall, because Constan­tinople was made of a mean City the seat of the Eastern Empire, and had as many Diocesses and Provinces subject unto it as old Rome it self.

But lest it may be conceived, that this was not done at all by Imperial power, but by the authority of the Oecumenical Synods, we may observe further, that Iustini [...]n the Emperour by his sole Soveraign Legislative power did new-found the Patriarchate of Iustiniana prima, By their authority. Novel. 11. et. and assign a province unto it, and indow it with most ample privi­ledges, Novel. 131. freeing it from all appeals, and all acknowledgment of superiority, giving the Bishop thereof equal power with that which the Bishop of Rome had in his Patri­archate. The same priviledges and prero­gatives were given by the same Emperour, by the same Legislative authority, to the Bishop of Carthage, notwithstanding that the Bishops of Rome did alwayes pretend that Carthage was under their Jurisdiction. I deny not that Vigilius and Gregory suc­ceeding Popes did make deputations to the Bishop of Iustiniana, to supply their places. But this was but an old Roman fineness. The Bishops of Iustiniana needed none of their Commissions. Iustinian the Father and founder of the Imperial Law knew well enough how far his Legislative power did extend. And though the Act was notori­ous the whole world, and inserted into [Page 127] the body of the Law, yet the Fathers of that age did not complain of any innovation, or usurpation, or breach of their priviledges, or violation of their rights.

King Henry the Eight had the same Im­perial power, English Kings as Soveraign [...]s the Em­perou [...]s. and was as much a Soveraign in his own Kingdomes, as Iustinian the Emperour in his larger Dominions, (as William Rufus, Son and successor of the Conqerour said most truly, that the Kings of England have all those liberties in their own Kingdomes, which the Emperours had in the Empire) and had as much authority to ex­empt his own subjects from the Jurisdiction of one Patriarch, Math. Paris. and transferre them to another, especially with the advise, consent and concurrence of a National Synod. So King Arthur his predecessor removed the Primacy from Ca [...]rleon to Saint Davids, and another of them to Canterbury, for the ad­vantage of their subjects according to the exigence of the times.

If the Pope had been the King of Eng­lands Subject, as former Popes were the Emperours, he might have served him as they did some of his predecessours, called a Councel, regulated him, and reduced him to order and reason; or, if he proved incor­rigible, have deposed him. But the Pope being a stranger, all that he could justly do was what he did, rather then to see his roy­all prerogative daily trampled upon, his Lawes destroyed, his Subjects oppressed, [Page 128] rather then to have new Articles of faith daily obtruded upon the English Church, rather then to incur the peril of willful Ido­latry, against conscience and therefore for­mal, to Cashier the Roman Court, with all their pardons and indulgences and other Alchymistical devices, out of his Kingdoms, until time should teach them to content themselves with moderate things, which endure long. Or untill either a free Oecu­menical Councel, or an Europaean Synod should settle controversies, and tune the jarring strings of the Christian world. In the mean time we pitty their errours, pray for their amendment, and long for a re­union.

Now the just grounds of such subduction or separation are of two sorts; Two sorts of grounds for su­straction of obedience. either the Personal faults of the Popes, or their Mi­nisters, as in the case of Simony and Schisme, which ought in justice to reflect upon none but the persons who are guilty; Or else they are faulty principles and rules, as well in point of Doctrine as of Disci­pline, such as the obtruding of new Creeds, the pressing of unlawful oathes, and the palpable usurpation of the undoubted rights of others. And these do justifie and warrant a more permanent separation, that is, untill they be reformed. Where­fore having taken a view of the sufficiency of the authority of our Princes to reform; In the next place it is worthy of our serious [Page 129] consideration what were the true grounds of the separation of the Kingdom and Church of England from the Court of Rome. And secondly, whether in the sub­duction or substraction of their obedience or Communion they observed due modera­tion.

The grounds of their separation were many, Our first grou [...]d. first the intolerable extortions and excessive Rapine of the Court of Rome, committed in that Realm, by their Legates and Nuncios, and Commissioners, and Col­lectors, and other inferiour Officers and harpies, enough to impoverish the kingdom, and to drain out of it all the treasure that was in it, and leave it as bare as a Grashop­per in winter, by their indulgences and par­dons for all kind of sin at a certain rate, Re­gistred in their penitentiary taxe. Yea as Ticelius, the Popes pardoner made his bragg in Germany, though a man had ravished the Mother of God, yet so soon as the money did but chink in the bottom of the Bason, Chemnit. Exa. Conc. Fred. presently the soul flew out of Purgatory. To these we may add their despensations of all sorts, and Commutations, and Absoluti­ons, and Contributions, and Reservations, and Tenths, and first Fruits, and Appeals, and Palles, and a thousand other Artifices to get money. As Provisions, Collations, Exemptions, Canonisations, Divolutions, Revocations, Unions, Commendams, Tole­rations, Pilg [...]images, Jubilees, Nulla hic [Page 130] arcana revel [...] saith Mantuan. Mant.

Temples, Priests, Altars, Myters, holy Orders, Prayers, Masses, Heaven, and God himself are salable at Rome. It is no mar­vel, they that buy must sell; And whilest I am writing these things comes fresh intelli­gence of a Book lately set forth, de Simoniae praesentis Pontificis, (they say) not penned, but dictated by such as know right well the most secret Cabales, and Intriques of the Conclave. Nam propius fama est hos tan­gere Divos; which I can easily impute more to the fault of the place, then of the man. The oblation of the body and blood of Christ is sold, fastings and penitentiary works are sold, qui non potest jejunare per se, potest jejunare per aliam, vel potest dar [...] num­mam pro jejunio. The merits of the Saints being alive are sold, their relicks being dead are sold, Scapulars and Monastick garments are sold. The Iewes with their Oxen, Sheep, and Doves, were but petty Mer­chants in comparison of these great ban­kers. Did any man desire a pall? the Law it self did direct them what to do, pallium non datur nisi fortiter postulanti; Dist. 100. C. 2. The Pall would not be given but to those that knocked hard with a silver hammer. Was any man a Suppliant to the Court of Rome? Matthew Paris puts him into a right way, [Page 131] Tunc sedes clementissima quae nulli de [...]sse consci­vit, In H [...]n. 1. an. 1103. dummodo albi aliquid vel rubei interce­dat, prescriptos P [...]ntifices & Abbates ad pristi­nas dignitates misericorditer revocavit; Then the most pittiful See, which is not accustomed to be wanting to any suppliants, so they bring white or yellow advocates along with them, did mercifully restore the said Bishops and Abbats to their former dignities. It is almost incre­dible what a masse of treasure they collected out of England in a short time onely from investitures, Ant. Brit. pag. 326. and some other exactions from Bishops, in foure years, no lesse then an hundred and sixty thousand pounds ster­ling as was [...]ound by inquisition. Archbi­shop Cranmer paid for his Bulles that con­cerned his Consecration and Pall nine hun­dred Ducats, To such an height were the extortions of the Roman Court mounted. Ex ungue leonem, Judge by this what the Popes yearly income or revenue out of England might be, by all these arts which we have formerly mentioned, and many more. Sometimes under pretense of re­covering the holy Land. Sometimes to relieve the poverty of the Roman Court, Sometimes in palfries, Sometimes in forged bills of Exchange, Sometimes in extorted subsidies, Sometimes to a certain summe, Sometimes to the fift part of their goods, Sometimes to the third part of Residents, and the half of non-residents, Sometimes in yearly revenues, as two Prebends of every [Page 132] Bishop, and the value of the maintenance of two Monks from every Abbat, Sometimes out of the goods of rich Clergy men who died intestate, Sometimes a years wages for paiment of Souldiers; some five, some ten, some fifteen according to their estates, Sometimes in Jewels, of all which he that desires to be more fully informed, needs but to read Matthew Paris who describes the abuses and extortions of the Roman Bi­shops Graphically throughout his History; And in one place he bemones the condi­tion of England in these words, Erat igitur videre dolorem praecordialem genas sanctorum irrigare, Math. Paris. an. 1237. querelas erumpere, suspiria multipli­care, dicentibus multis cum singulta cruentato, melius est nobis mori quam videre malagentis nostrae & Sanctorum. Vae Angliae quae quondam princeps provinciarum, domina gentium, specu­liem Ecclesiae, religionis exemplum, nunc facta est sub tributo, conculcaverunt eam ignobiles, & facta est in praedam de generibus, &c. Therr­fore a man might see sorrow of heart, water the eielids of holy men, complaints break out, and grones multiplied, many saying with bloody sighs, It is better for us to die then to see the mi­sery of our Nation, and of holy persons. Wo be to England which once was the Princess of Provinces, the Lady of Nations, the glasse of the Church, a pattern of Religion, but now is be­come tributary, Ignoble fellowes have troden her under foot, And she is made a prey to base persons.

[Page 133]Neither was this the complaint of the Vulgar onely: All conscientious men were of the same mind. Who hath not heard of the bitter complaints and free declama­tions of Grosthead the learned and Religious Bishop of Lincolne, against the Tyranny and Rapine of the Roman Courts, both in the time of his health, and upon his death­bed? for which he was stiled Romanorum malleus, Math. Par: in H. 3. an. 1253. The hammer of the Romans, where­by he so much irritated the Pope, that he would have deposed him, and accursed him in his life time, if he had not been disswa­ded by his Cardinals in respect of the learn­ing, and holinesse, and deserved reputa­tion of the Bishop; And after his death would have had his Corps disinterred and buried in a dunghill, but that the Bi­shop appeared to him the night before, and gave him, or seemed to give him such a shrewd remembrance, Idem. An. 1254. partly with words, and partly with his crosier staffe, that the Pope was much terrified and half dead, so that he could neither eat nor drink the day following.

The Pope excommunicated Sewalus the Archbishop of York with Bell Book and Candle, But non curavit voluntati papale re­licto Iuris rigare muliebriter obedire. Qua­propter quant [...] magis praecipient Papa maledice­batur, Idem. An. 1257. tanto plus a populo benedicebatur tacite tamen propter metum Romanorum. He cared not to submit womanishly to the Popes will, leaving the streight rule of the Law. [Page 134] wherefore the more he was accused by the Popes command, the more he was blessed of the People, but secretly for fear of the Romans. In his last sicknesse he summoned the Pope before the Tribunall of the high and incorruptible Judge, and called Heaven and Earth to be his witnesses how unjustly the Pope had op­pressed him, Dixit Dominus Petro, &c. The Lord said unto St. Peter, Id. An. 1258. feed my sheep, not clip them, not flea them, not unbowell them, not de­voure them. They who desire to know what opinion the English had of the greedinesse and extortion of the Court of Rome, may find them drawn out to the life by Chaucer in sundry places. Plowmans tale and else where.

Such thriving Alchymists were never heard of in our daies, Our second ground. nor in the daies of our fore-Fathers, that with such ease and dex­terity could change an ounce of lead into a pound of gold. So they had great reason to say of England that it was a Well that could not be drawn dry. And England had as much reason to whip these Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple. This complaint is neither new nor particular as we shall see further in due place.

The second ground of our Ancestors se­paration of themselves from the Court of Rome, were their most unjust usurpations, and daily incroachments and intrench­ments, and extream violations of all sorts of rights, civill and Ecclesiastical, sacred and prophane. They indeavoured to rob the [Page 135] King of the fairest flowers of his Crown, As of his right to convocare Synods, and to confirm Synods within his own domini­ons, of his Legislative and judiciary power in Ecclesiasticall causes, of his Politicall Jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical persons, of his Ecclesiasticall Feuds and Investitures of Bishops, of his just Patronages of Churches founded by his Ancestors, and of the last appeals of his subjects. And as if all this had been too little, taking advantage of King Iohns troubles, they attempted to make the royall Sc [...]pter of England Feudotary and tributary to the Crosier staffe of Rome at the annuall rent of a thousand marks. Nei­ther is this the case of England alone, Episo. Eleiensis. see­ing they make the like pretensions in matter of fact almost to all Europe. To say no­thing now of that Dominion which some of them have challenged indirectly, others directly over Soveraign Princes, Nos impe­ria, regna, principatus et quicquid habere mor­tales possunt, Plat. in Greg. 7. au [...]erre et dare posse. We have power to take away and to give Empires, King­doms, Principalities, and whatsoever mortal men can have; because I confesse that it is not generally received by the Roman Church.

Mr. Blackwell made Archpriest of Eng­land by Clement the eighth, Larg. Ex­am. p. 18. cites Cardinall Allen, with much honour to his memorie, but much scandalized at his doctrine, that none can be admitted King of England without the Popes leave: His words are [Page 136] these, Without the approbation of the See Apo­stolique, none can be lawfull King or Queen of England by reason of the ancient accord made between Alexander the third the year 1171. Admon. to the Nobi­lity by Card. Allen. 1. 8. and Henry the second then King, when he was absolved for the death of St. Thomas of Can­terbury, That no man might lawfully take that Crown, nor be accounted as King till he were confirmed by the Soveraign Pastor of our souls which for the time should be. This accord afterwards being renewed about the year 1210. by King Iohn, who confirmed the same by oath to Pandulphus the Popes Legate, at the spe­ciall request and procurement of the Lords and Commons, as a thing most necessary for preservation of the Realm from unjust usur­pation of Tyrants, and avoiding other incon­veniences which they had proved, and might ea­sily fall again into, by the disorder of some wicked King. To which he adds with the like disapprobation a like testimony of Sta­nislaus Christa novic a Polonian author, who infers upon the former ground that the Pope may depose the King of England, as being but a tributary King, his words are these, Exam. Ca­thol. p. 34. Illud impie Legislatores per jusjuran­dum extorquent a Catholicis, &c. The law­makers do impiously by an oath extort this from Catholicks, to deny that the King may be depo­sed by the Pope, and his Kingdomes and Coun­tries by him disposed of. For if by an Ho­nourable and pious grant the Kingdome hav become tributary to the Pope, why may he [Page 137] not dispose of it? Why may he not depose the Prince being refractory and disobedient? Thus a bold stranger altogether ignorant of our histories and of our lawes shoots his bolt at all adventures upon the credit of a shamefull fiction: but from whom did they learn this lesson? even from the Pope him­self. Bishop Grosthead had been a little bold with the Pope for his extorting courses, calling him Antichrist, and murtherer of Souls, and comparing the Court of Rome to Behemoth, that putteth his mouth to the ri­ver Jordan thinking to drink it up, and stiling the oppression of the English Nation an Aegiptian Bondage. Math. Pa­ris. an. 1244. He had good reason, for the Court of Rome in those daies was grown past shame, (rubore deposito) and con­sequently past grace. The Pope irritated with this usage breaks out into this passionate expression, Nonne Rex Anglorum noster est Vasallus, et ut plus dicam mancipium? Is not the King of England our Vassal, or rather our Slave? Idem. an. 1253. Or rather are these fit guests to be entertained in a Kingdom that make no more of our Soveraign Princes then their Vassals and Slaves, who can neither be ad­mitted to the Crown without their leave, nor hold it but by their grace?

This relation of Cardinal Allen brings to my remembrance the question of Neopto­lemus to Vlisses when he should have taught him the Art of lying, how it was possi­ble for one to tell a lie without blushing? The Arch-Priest is much more ingenuous, [Page 140] affirming that the assertions touching both the said Kings for matter of fact were untrue. That Henry the second never made any such accord with Alexander the third, for ought that he could ever read in any Chronicle of Credit. Then the oath which Henry the se­cond did take for himself, (not for his heires,) was this, that he would not depart from him or his successours, Ro. Houed. Annal. fol. 303. so long as they should intreat him as a Catholick King. That the fact of King John is of more probability, but of as little truth, which he confirmes by the testimony of Sir Thomas Moore a Lord Chancellour of England, a man of Extraordinary learn­ing, of great parts, of so good affections to the Roman See, that he is supposed to have died for the Popes Supremacy, and is com­mended by Cardinall Bellarmine to Mr. Blackwell as a Martyr, Ep. Card. Bell. ad G. Blackw. Archpr. and a guide of ma­ny others to Martyrdom, cum ingenti An­glica nationis gloria, certainly one who had as much means to know the truth, both by view of records, and otherwise, as any man living: Thus writeth he, If he, (the author of the beggars supplication) say as indeed some writers say, Supplic. of souls, p. 296. that King John made England and Ireland tributary to the Pope and the See Apostolique, by the grant of a thousand Markes, we dare surely say again, that it is untrue, and that all Rome neither can shew such a grant, nor ever could; And if they could, it were nothing worth. For never could any king of England give away the Realm to [Page 141] the Pope, or make the Land tributary, though he would.

As to that of Henry the second, without doubt the Archpriest had all the reason in the world for him. Cardinall Allen did not write by inspiration, and could expect no more credit then he brought authority. There is a vast difference between these two, that no man shall be accounted King of England untill he be confirmed by the Pope: And this other, that the King in his own per­son would not desert the Pope, so long as he in­treated him like a Catholick King. The for­mer is most dishonourable to the Nation, and Diametrally opposite to the fundamen­tal Lawes of the Land. The later we might take our selves without offence to God or our own consciences. But to make our Kings their vassals aud their slaves, to impoverish their Realm, and to commit all those exorbitant misdemeanours against them, which we have related in part, and shall yet describe more fully, was neither to intreat them like Catholick Kings, nor like Christian Kings, nor yet like political Kings.

And for his Saint Thomas of Canterbury we do not believe that the Popes Canoni­sation, or to have his name inserted into the Calender in red letters, makes a Saint. We do abhominate that murther as Lawlesse and Barbarous, to sprinkle not onely the pavements of the Church, but the very al­tar [Page 140] with the blood of a Prelate, And we condemn all those who had an hand in it: But we do not believe that the cause of his suffering was sufficient to make him a Martyr, namely to help forraign [...]rs to pull the fairest flowers from his Princes Diadem by violence, and to perjure himself, and vi­olate his oath given for the observation of the Articles of Clarendon. Hoveden Annal. p. 292. All his own Suf­fragan Bishops were against him in the cause, and justified the Kings proceedings as appeareth by two of their letters, one to himself, the other to Pope Alexander the third. The Barons of the Kingdom reputed him as a Traitor quo progrederis Proditor? Expecta et audi judicium tuum. Idem. Whither goest thou Traitor? stay and hear thy judgment. This is certain, The first time that ever any Pope did challenge the right of investitures in En­gland was in the dayes of Henry the first, and Paschal the second was the first Pope that ever exacted an oath from any for­raign Bishop, above Eleven hundred years after Christ. Before that time they evermore swore fealty to their Prince, Plat. in pasch. 2. de Homagiis, de Feudis, de sacramentis Episcoporum, Laicis antea exhibitis, There was great consultation about the homage, and Fealty, and oaths of Bishops in for­mer ages sworn to Lay-men. These new articles of faith are too young to make Martyrs.

[Page 141]Concerning the secōd instance of King Iohn, though I attribute much to the authority of Sir Thomas More in that case, who would never have been so confident unlesse he had supposed that he had searched the mat­ter to the bottom, yet his zeal to the Pa­pacy and his unwillingnesse to see such an unworthy act proceed from that See might perhaps mislead him: Math. Paris. an. 1212. for I confesse sun­dry authours do relate the case otherwise. That there was a Prophesie or Prediction made by one Peter an Hermite, that the next day to Ascension sunday there should be no King in England, That Pope Inno­cent the third being angry with King Iohn excommunicated him, interdicted the King­dom, deprived him of his Crown, absolved his subjects from their allegiance, animated his Barons and Bishops against him, gave away his Realm to Philip King of France; sent Pandolphus as his Legate into England to see all this executed, The King of France provides an Army accordingly. But the crafty Pope underhand gives his Legate se­cret instructions to speak privatly with King Iohn, And if he could make a better bar­gain for him, and draw him to submit to the sentence of the Pope, he should act no­thing against him, but in his favour. They do meete, King Iohn submits, The Pope orders him to resign his Crown and Kingdomes to the See of Rome, [Page 144] so (they say) he did, and received them the next day of the Popes grace as a feudatary at the yearly rent of a thousand Marks, Math. Paris. an. 1253. for the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, And did homage and swear fealty to Pope In­nocent.

But whereas the Cardinal adds upon his own head that this was done at the special request and procurement of the Lords and Commons, it is an Egregious forgery and well deserves a whetstone, for all the three Orders of the kingdom, Bishops, Barons, and Commons, Hoops. ad. saecul. 14. c. 5. did protest against it in Parliament notwithstanding any private contract that might be made by King Iohn; Citat. Sanct. Clara. And that they would defend themselves by arms from the temporal Jurisdiction of the Pope. But the other answer of Sr. Thomas More is most certain and beyond all ex­ception, that if either Henry the second, or King Iohn had done any such thing, it was not worth a rush, nor signified any thing, but the greedinesse and prophanenesse of these pretended vicars of Christ, who prostituted and abused their Office, and the power of the Keies, to serve their base and avaritious ends, and lets the world see how well they deserved to be thrust out of doores. What? That no man might be crowned, or accounted King of England, untill he were confirmed by the Pope? By the Law of England, Rex non moritur the King ne­ver dies. And doth all acts of Soveraignty [Page 145] before his Coronation as well as after.

They robbed the Nobility of their pa­tronages, Those Churches which their Ancestours had founded and indowed, be­ing by provisions from Rome frequently conferred upon strangers, which could not speak one word of English nor did ever tread upon English ground; Insomuch, that at one time there were so many Itali­ans beneficed in England, that they re­ceived more money yearly out of it, Math. Paris. in H. 3. An. 1245. then all the revenues of the Crown, to the high disservice of Almighty God, the great scan­dal of Religion, the decay of hospital­lity, and the utter ruine of the English Church.

But the least share of their oppressions did not light upon the Bishops, who by their dispensations, and reservations of cases, and of pensions, and exemptions, and inhibitions, and visitations, and tenths, and first fruits, and provisions, and subsidiary helps, were impoverished and disabled to do the duties of their function: They take their aime much amisse who look upon Episcopacy as a branch of Popery, or a de­vice of the Bishop of Rome to advance his own greatnesse. Whereas the contrary is most certain, that the Pope is the greatest Impugner of Bishops, and the Papacy it self sprung from the unjust usurpation of their just rights. Let it be once admitted, that Bishops are by divine right, and instantly [Page 144] all his dispensations, and reservations, and exemptions, and Indulgences, and his Con­clave of Cardinalls, and the whole Court of Rome shrink to nothing. This was clear­ly perceived by both parties in the ventila­tion of that famous question in the Councel of Trent, concerning the divine right of Bishops, proposed by the Almaines, Poloni­ans and Hungarians, seconded bravely by the Spaniards, prosecuted home by the French, owned by the Archbishop of Paris as the doctrine of Sorbone, and onely cros­sed by the Italian faction, to preserve the glorie of their own country, and the advan­tages which that nation doth reap from the Papacy. By whose frowardnesse and prevarication (in all probability) the re­union of the Church, and the universal peace of this part of Christendom in necessary Truths, was hindred at that time.

I presume the case was not so very ill in forrain parts, but yet ill enough. Or other­wise St. Bernard would not have made so bold with Eugenius, Bern. L. 3. de conside­ratione. adding that if the daies were not evil, he would speak many more things, Why do you thrust your sickle into other mens harvest, &c. He complaines of the confusion of appeals, how they were admitted contrary to law and right, besides custom and order, without any distinction of place, or manner, or time, or cause, or person. He complaines further of the ex­emption [Page 145] of Abbats from their Bishops, Bishops from their Archbishops, Archbi­shops from their Primates. And this he stiles Murmur & communem querimoniam Ecclesiarum, The murmuring and common com­plaint of the Churches.

Lastly, they cheated and impoverished the people by their dispensations and com­mutations, and pardons, and indulgences, and expeditions to recover the holy Land, and Jubilees, and pilgrimages, and agnus Dei's, and a thousand pecuniary Artifices. So as no sort of men escaped their fingers.

The third ground of their separation from Rome was, The third ground▪ because they found by experience that such forreign Jurisdiction so exercised was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical discipline, which is in part to preserve publick peace and tran­quillity, to retein subjects in due obedience, and to oblige people to do their duties more conscienciously. Farre be it from any Christian to imagine that policy is the Spring-head of Religion; There ne­ver was yet any one Nation so unpolitick and brutishly barbarous, but they had some Religion or other; they who obeyed no governors but their parents, paid reli­gious duties to some God; they who want­ed Clothes to their backs, wanted not their sacred Ceremonies; they who were with­out municipal Lawes, were subject of them­selves to the law of conscience. But where [Page 146] Religion hath lost its influence and vigour by contempt, and much more where the in­fluence of Religion is malignant; where Policy and Religion do not support one another, but interfere one with another, Societies are like Castles builded in the air, without any firm foundation, and cannot long endure, like as that single Meteor Castor appearing without Pollux portends an unfortunate voyage. Let us flatter our selves as much as we please (said Tully to the Romans) we have not overcome the Spaniards in Number, nor the Galles in Force, nor the Carthaginians in Craft, nor the Grecians in Art, nor the Italians in Vnderstanding, but the advantage which we have gained over them was by Religious pi [...]ty. So great an influ­ence hath Religion upon the body Poli­tique.

Wherefore our Ancestors having seen by long and costly experience, that the tyranni­cal Jurisdiction of the Roman Court instead of peace and tranquillity did produce dis­union in the Realm, factions and animosi­ties between the Crown and the Miter, intestine discord between the King and his Barons, bad intelligence with Neighbour-Princes, and forreign Wars. Having seen a stranger solicited by the Pope, either to destroy them by War, or to subdue them to the obedience of the Roman Court. Ha­ving seen their native Country given away as a prey to a forreign Prince Philip of [Page 147] France; And the Pope well near seated in the Royal Chair of Estate, for him and his successours for ever, to the endlesse dis­honour of the English name and Nation, by the cheating tricks of Pandolphus his Legate, having seen English Rebels canonized at Rome, and made Saints, it was no marvel if they thought it high time to free them­selves from such a chargable and dangerous guest.

Fourthly, The fourth ground. besides the former bad influ­ence of forreign Jurisdiction upon the bo­dy Politique, they found sundry other in­conveniences that incited them to separate from Rome: They must have been daily subject to have had new Creeds and new Articles of faith obtruded upon them: They must have been daily exposed to manifold and manifest peril of Idolatry, and sinning against God and their own consciences: They must have forsaken the Communion of three parts of Christendom, which are not Roman, to joyn with the fourth: They must have approved the Popes apparent rebellion against the supream Ec­clesiastical power, that is, a general Councel: And their Bishops must have sworn to maintain him in these his rebellious usurpa­tions, whether they should prefer their native and Christian liberty, or give them up for nothing; whether they should pre­serve their Communion with the Catho­lique Church, or with the Court of Rome; [Page 148] whether they should desert the Pope, or in­volve themselves in Rebellion, Schisme, Sa­criledge, and Perjury, the choice was soon made.

Lastly, they see that the Popes had disclai­med all that just power which they had by humane right, and challenged to them­selves a spiritual Monarchy or Sovereign­ty by divine right, whereby their sufferings which in themselves were unsupportable, were made also irremediable, from thence. Wherefore they sought out a fit expedient for themselves, being neither ignorant of their old Britannick exemption and liber­ties of the English Church, nor yet of the weaknesse of the Roman pretences. Our progenitors knew well enough that their authority extended not to take away any the least particle of divine right, if there had been any such, Nor could they justly be accused of violating that humane right, which had been quitted long before; nor be blamed rightly for denying obedience to him from whose Jurisdiction they were ex­empted by the Canon of an Oecumenical Councel, and who had himself implicitely renounced that Ecclesiastical right which he held from the Church.

Perhaps some may conceive a defect in the manner of proceeding of the King and Church of England, that they did not first make a Remonstrance of their grievances, and seek redresse of the Pope himself; So [Page 149] the Councel of Towers thought it fit. Vi­sum est tamen Concilio, ante omnia mittendos Legatos ad D. Papam Julium, Cone. Tur [...]. an. 1510. in sine. &c. It seemeth good to the Councel, that in the first place mes­sengers be sent from the French Church to the Pope, who may admonish him with brotherly love and according to the Evangelical form of correction to desist from his attempts, and to im­brace peace and concord with the Princes; But if he will not hear the messengers, let him be demanded to convocate a free Councel, according to the decrees of the holy Councel of Basile. And this being done, and his answer received, further provision shall be made according to right.

To this I answer first, That it had been reasonable and just indeed, that we had made our first addresse to the Pope, if we acknow­ledged the Roman Bishop to be our lawful Patriarch: But the same respect is not due to an usurper. Secondly, we have seen by frequent experience, how vain and fruitlesse such addresses have proved from time to to time. According to the former advise of the Councel of Towers, Extraict des anales d' Aqui-taine. the King of France sent Ambassadors to Rome, but the Pope refused to hear them, or to convocate any Councel, and before his death Anathe­matized Maximilian King of the Romans; the Kings of France and of Navarre, and divers other Princes, Cardinals, and Bishops deprived the Kings and Princes of their re­spective Realms and Principalities, the [Page 150] Bishops of their dignities and benefices, and gave their Kingdoms and Principalities to the first that could take them; from which sentence they appealed to a future Coun­cel.

The most ancient arbitrary imposition of the Popes upon the British Churches was the Pall, an honourable and at first innocent ensign of an Archbishop, other­wise of no great moment; first introduced in the reigns of the Saxon Kings after the six hundreth year of Christ; But in process of time it became vendible, and a great summe was exacted for it, whereof Canu­tus long since complained at Rome, and had remedy promised, as he well deserved of that See. But how well it was observed, the experience of after-ages doth manifest, Baron to. 11. when both the price was augmented, and withall an oath of allegiance to the Pope imposed, Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apo­stolica pallium non tradet, Greg. 9. de Elect. et Elect. pote­state. [...]isi prius praeste [...] fide­litatis et obedientiae juramentum. The See Apo­stolique will not deliver the Pall to an elect Archbishop, unlesse he first swear fidelity and obedience to the Pope: what was become of their old oath of allegiance to their King?

In the year 1245. the King, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the whole Common-Wealth of England joyned toge­ther unanimously in a complaint, and exhi­bited their grievances to Rome, that the Pope [Page 151] extorted more then his Peter-pence out of the Kingdom contrary to law, that the Patrons of Churches were defrauded of their rights, stran­gers preferred, souls endangered, their bullion ex­ported, the Kingdome impoverished, provisions made, pensions exacted. That the English were drawn out of the Realm by the authority of the Pope, contrary to the customes of the Kingdom. They complained of the coming among them of the Popes infamous messenger, Math. Pa­ris. An. 1245. (non ob­stante) by which oaths, customes, writings, grants, statutes, rights, priviledges, were not only weakened, but exinanited, They complain­ed of collections without the Kings leave, that hospitality was not kept, the poor not sustained, the Word not preached, Churches not adorned, the cure of souls neglected, divine offices not per­formed, and Churches ruined by the abuses of the Papal Court. I cannot omit one clause in the letter of the Lords to the Pope, Nisi de gravaminibus domino Regi et regno illatis Rex et r [...]gnum citiùs liberentur, oportebit nos ponere murum pro dom [...] Domini, et libertate reg­ni. Quod quidem ob Apostolicae sedis reveren­tiam, hucusque facere distuli [...]us. Vnlesse the King and Kingdom be quickly freed from these grievances, we must make a wall (of defence or partition,) for the house of the Lord, and the li­berty of the Kingdom, which we have hitherto forborn to do out of our reverend respect of the Apostolique See. They seem to allude to that wall which Severus made to save the Kingdom from the incursions of the Scots [Page 152] and Picts. Surely that was not more neces­sary then, than that wall of partition which Henry the eighth made afterwards, to save the Realm from the affronts and extortions and injuries of the Roman Court.

Neither did they make their addresses to the Pope alone, but to the Councel of Lyons, by the Procters of the whole Nobility and Commonalty of England, for redresse of the violent oppressions, intolerable grievances, and impudent exactions which were practised in En­gland, Idem an. 1245. by meanes of that hateful clause, non obstante, too often inserted in the Popes let­ters. They represented that there were so many Italians for the most part ignorant and unlearned, that understood not one En­glish word, nor did ever tread upon En­glish ground, beneficed among them, that their yearly revenue exceeded the revenue of the Crown. Neither did they complain onely, Ibidem. but threaten and swear that they would not permit such abuses for the fu­ture. But what ease did the poore English find by complaining to the Pope either in Councel or out of Councel? Martine the Popes Commissioner (for he could not send a Legate without the Kings consent) ex­torts, excommunicates, interdicts; the Pope himself is angry, Id. an. 1246. because like sturdy chil­dren they durst cry and whimper when they were beaten, and perswades the King of France to invade England, and either to de­pose the King or subject him to the Court [Page 153] of Rome, which lost the Pope the heart of the English. The King told them that their King began to kick against him, and play the Frederick. And they threatened, that if he persisted they should be forced to do that which would make his heart ake. After this Edward the third made his addresses likewise to Rome for remedy of grievances, in the year 1343. How did he speed? No better then his Great grandfather Henry the third, Walsingh. p. 161. The Pope was offended, and termed his modest expostulation rebellion. But that wise and magnanimous Prince was not daunted with words; to requite their in­vectives, he made the statutes of Provisoes and praemunire, directly against the in­croachments and usurpations of the Court of Rome. Whereby he so abated their power in England for sundry ages follow­ing, that a Dean and Chapter were able to deal with them, not onely to hold them at the swords point, but to soile them.

Lastly, King Henry the eighth himself had been long a suiter unto Clement the seventh, to have his Predecessor Iulius the seconds dispensation for his marriage with his Bro­thers wife, to be declared void. But though the Popes own Doctors & Universities had declared the dispensation to be unlawfull and invalide, See theopc. of the [...]ull in Antisan­derus. and although the Pope him­self had once given forth a Bull privately to his Legate Cardinall Campeius for the revocation thereof, wherein he declared the [Page 154] marriage to be null, and that the King could not continue in it without sinne; yet the King found so little respect either to the condition of his person, or to the justice of his cause, that after long delayes, to try if he could be allured to the Popes will, in the conclusion he received a flat deniall. This was no great incouragement to him to make any more addresses to Rome. So what was threatened and effected in part in the dayes of Henry the third, and Edward the third, was perfected in the reign of Henry the eighth, when the Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome in England was abolished, which makes the great distance between them and us. Different opinions are often devised or defended on purpose to main­tain faction; if animosities; were extin­guished, and the mindes of Christians free from prejudice, other controversies might quickly be reconciled, and reduced to primitive general truths. The power Paramount of the Court of Rome hath ever been, and still is that insana laurus, which causeth brawling and contention, not onely between us and them, but between them and the East [...]rn Churches, yea, even be­tween them and those of their own commu­nion, Memorial de sa. Ma­gest. ad Ca­rol. an. 1633. L [...]sit ge [...]i­tus. p. 43. as we shall see in the next Chapter. Yea, the originall source & true cause of all the Separations, & reformations made in the Church in these last ages; As all the Estates of Castile did not forbear to tell the Pope [Page 155] himself not long since in a printed memori­all, and the Kingdom of Portugall likewise. To conclude this point; These former Kings who reigned in England about the years 1200. and 1300. might properly be called the first Reformers; and their Lawes of Proviso's, and Pr [...]munire's, or more pro­perly premoneres the beginning of the Re­formation. They laid the Foundation, and Henry the Eighth builded upon it.

Now having seen the authority of our Reformers, The mode­ration of the English Reformers. and the justice of their grounds: in the last place let us observe their due mo­deration in the manner of their separation. First they did not; we do not deny the being of any Church whatsoever, Roman or other, nor possibility of salvation in them, especially such as hold firmly the Apostles Creed, and the faith of the four first Gene­rall Councels; Though their salvation be rendred much more difficult by humane in­ventions, and obstructions. And by this very sign did Saint Cyprian purge himself and the African Bishops from Schisme, Conc. Carth. de baptiz. [...]. Ne­minem judicantes, aut à jure communionis ali­quem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Iudg­ing no man, removing no man from our com­munion, for difference in opinion. We do in­deed require subscription to our Articles, but it is onely from them who are our own, not from strangers; nor yet of all our own, but onely of those who seek to be initiated [Page 156] into holy orders, or are to be admitted to some Ecclesiastical preferment. So it is in every mans election whether he will put himself upon a necessity of subscription or not; neither are our Articles penned with Anathema's or curses against all those, even of our own who do not receive them; but used only as an help or rule of unity among our selves. Si quis diversum dixerit, If any of our own shall speak, or preach, or write against them, we question him. But si quis diversum senserit, if any man shall onely think otherwise in his private opinion, and trouble not the peace of the Church, we question him not. We presume not to censure others to be out of the pale of the Church, but leave them to stand or fall to their own Master. We damne none for dis­senting from us, we do not separate our selves from other Churches, unlesse they chase us away with their censures, but onely from their errours: For clear manifesta­tion whereof, observe the thirtieth Canon of our Church, It was so far from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, Can. 30. France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches in all things which they held and practised, &c. that it only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their a [...]cient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches, which were their first founders. So moderate are we towards all Christians, [Page 157] whether forreigners or domesticks, whether whole Churches or single persons.

But because the Roman Catholicks do lay hold upon this charitable assertion of ours, as tending mainly to their advantage: Behold (say they) Protestants do acknow­ledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church; But Roman Catholicks deny all possibility of Salvation in the Protestant Churches; Therefore the Religion of Ro­man Catholiques is much safer then that of Protestants. Hence proceeded their Trea­tise of charity mistaken, and sundry other discourses of that nature, wherein there are mistakes enough, but little charity. For answer, If this Objection were true, I should love my Religion never the worse. Where I find little charity, I look for as little faith: But it is not true, for when the businesse is searched to the bottom, they acknowledge the same possibility of salvation to us, which we do to them, that is, to such of either Church respectively, as do not erre wilfully, but use their best endeavours to find out the truth. Take two testimonies of the Bishop of Chalcedon, Protest. plain confession, Ch. 13. p. 151, 152. If they (that is, the Protestants) grant not salvation to such Papists as they count vincibly ignorant of Roman errours, but onely to such as are invincibly ignorant of them, they have no more charity then we; for we grant Church, saving faith, and salvation to such Protestants as are invincibly ignorant of their errours. And in his book of the distinction [Page 158] of fundamentals, and not fundamentals, he hath these words, Ch. 2. p. 62. If Protestants allow not saving faith, Church, and salvation to such as sinfully erre in not fundamentals sufficiently pr [...] ­posed, they shew no more charity to erring Christi­ans then Catholicks d [...]; for we allow all to have saving faith, to be in the Church, in way of sal­vation, (for so much as belongeth to faith,) who hold the fundamental points, and invincibly erre in not fundamentals, because neither are these sufficiently proposed to them, nor they in fault that they are not so proposed.

Secondly, as our separation is from their errours, not from their Churches: so we do it with as much inward charity and modera­tion of our affections, as we can possibly; willingly indeed in respect of their errours, and especially their tyrannical exactions and usurpations, but unwillingly and with reluctation in respect of their persons, and much more in respect of our common Sa­viour. As if we were to depart from our fathers, or our brothers house, or rather from some contagious sicknesse wherewith it was infected. Not forgetting to pray God daily to restore them to their former purity, that they and we may once again enjoy the comfort and contentment of one anothers Christian Society. We pray for their conversion publickly in our Letany, in general: And expressely and solemnly upon Good Friday, though we know that they do as solemnly curse us the day before. If [Page 159] this be to be Schismaticks, it were no ill wish for Christendome that there were ma­ny more such Schismaticks.

Thirdly, we do not arrogate to our selves either a new Church, or a new Religion, or new holy orders: for then we must produce new miracles, new revelations, and new clo­ven tongues for our justification. Our Religion is the same it was, our Church the same it was, our holy orders the same they were in substance, differing onely from what they were formerly, as a garden weeded, from a garden unweeded; or a body purged, from it self before it was purged. And there­fore as we presume not to make new Arti­cles of faith, much lesse to obtrude such innovations upon others; so we are not willing to receive them from others, or to mingle Scholastical opinions with funda­mental truths. Which hath given occasion to some to call our Religion a negative reli­gion; Not considering that our positive articles are those general truths about which there is no controversie. Our negation is onely of humane controverted additi­ons.

Lastly, we are ready in the preparation of our mindes to believe and practise, what­soever the Catholick Church (even of this present age) doth universally and unani­mously believe and practice. Quod apud mul­tos unum invenitur, Tertull. non est err [...]tum, sed tradi­tum. And though it be neither lawful nor [Page 160] possible for us to hold actual communion with all sorts of Christians in all things, wherein they vary both from the truth, and one from another, yet even in those things we hold a communion with them in our de­sires, longing for their conversion and re­union with us in truth.

CHAP. VII.
That all Princes and Republiques of the Roman Communion, do in effect the same thing when they have occasion, or at least do plead for it.

SO we are come to our fifth Conclu­sion, That whatsoever the King and Church of England did in the separa­tion of themselves from the Court of Rome, it is no more then all Sovereign Princes and Churches (none of whatsoever communion excepted) do practise or pre­tend as often as they have occasion. And first, for all Protestant Kings, Princes, and Republicks, it admits no deniall or di­spute.

Secondly, for the Grecian and all other Eastern Churches, it can be no more doubt­ed of then of the Protestants, since they never acknowledged any obedience to be due from them to the Bishop of Rome, but [Page 161] onely an honourable respect, as to the prime Patriarch and beginning of unity. Whose farewell or separation is said to have been as smart as ours, and upon the same grounds in these words, Gers. part. 4. Ser. de pace et unit. Graec. We acknowledge thy power, we cannot satisfie thy covetousnesse, live by your selves.

But my aim extends higher to verifie this of the Roman Catholick Princes and Republicks themselves, as the Emperour, the most Christian and Catholick Kings, the Republick of Venice and others. To begin with the Emperours: I do not mean those ancient Christian Primitive Emperours who lived and flourished before the daies of Gre­gory the Great. Such a Court of Rome as we made our secession from, was not then in being, nor the Colledge of Parish Priests at Rome turned then into a Conclave of Cardinals, as Ecclesiastical Princes of the Oecumenical Church. So long there was no need of any separation from them, or protestation against them. But I intend the later Emperours since Gregorie's time, after the Popes sought to usurp an universal Sovereignty over the Catholick Church, and more particularly the Occidental, that is to say, the French and German Emperours.

Yet the Reader may be pleased to take notice, The case of England not the same wi [...]h Germany; that the case of our Kings is much different from theirs in two respects.

First, they believed the Roman Bishop to be their lawful Patriarch, (whether justly [Page 162] or not, is not the subject of this present dis­course,) But we do utterly deny his Patriar­chal authority over us; And to demonstrate our exemption, do produce for matter of right that famous Canon of the General Councel of Ephesus, made in the case of the Cyprian Bishops; and for matter of fact, the unanimous Votes of two British Synods, and the concurrent testimonies of all our Histo­riographers. Some have been formerly cited: We might adde to them the ancient British history, called by the Author thereof Bru­tus, wherein he relates this answer of the British to Augustine, Cap. 98. Se Caerleonensi Archie­piscopo obedire voluisse, Augustino autem Romano Legato omnin [...] noluisse, nec Anglis inimicis & paulò antè Paganis (à quibus suis sedibus pulsi erant) subesse se, qui semper Chri­stianifuerunt voluisse: That they would obey the Archbishop of Caerleon, (that was their British Primate, or Patriarch,) but they would not obey Austine the Bishop of Romes Legate: Neither would the Britanes who had evermore been Christians from the beginning, be under the English, who were their enemies, and but newly converted from Paganis [...]e, by whom they had been driven out of their ancient habitations. The same history is related by sundry other very ancient Authours. Graius in scala Chro­nica. Goce­linus in hist. majore, &c.

A second difference between our English Kings and the later German Emperours is this, that our Kings by the fundamental con­stitutions of the Kingdome are hereditary [Page 163] Kings, and never die. So there is an unin­terrupted succession without any vacancy. But the Emperours are elective, and con­sequently not invested in the actual posses­sion of their Sovereignty without some publick solemnities. Whereof some are essential, as the votes of the Electours; some others ceremonial, as the last Coronation of the Emperour by the Bishop of Rome, which was really, and is yet titularly his Imperial City. But the Popes who had learned to make their own advantage of every thing, sacred or civil, took occasion from hence to make the world believe that the Imperial Crown was their gift, and the Emperours their Liegemen. So Adrian the fourth doubted not to write to Frederick Barbarossa the Emperour, Insigne corona be­neficium tibi contulimus; Goldast. Constit. Im­per. Impres­sae Franco­furti, an. 1607. p. 1. pag. 62. which was so offen­sively taken, that (as the German Bishops in their letter to the same Pope do affirm) the whole Empire was moved at it, the ea [...]es of his Imperial Majestie could not hear it with pa­tience, nor the Princes endure it, nor they them­selves either durst of could approve it. Where­upon the Pope was forced to expound himself, that by beneficium, he meant no­thing but bonum factum, a good deed; and by contulimus, nothing but i [...]posu [...]mus, that he had put the Crown upon him. So the Emperour complaines in his letter to the Bishops, A pictura coepit, à pictura ad Scri­pturam processit; Scriptura in authoritatem [Page 164] prodire conatur, &c. It began with paiu [...]ing, from painting it proceeded to writing, And at last they sought to justifie it by authority. We will not (said he) suffer it, Ibidem. we will not indure it, we will rather lay down our Imperial Crown, then suffer the Empire it self to be deposed, with our consent. Let the pictures be defaced, let the writings be retracted, that perpetual monuments of enmity between the S [...]pter and the Mi [...]er may continue.

Thus Pope Adrian failed of his design; But his successour Iohn the 22. renewed the Papal claim against Ludovicus the fourth, in higher termes, as appeareth by his own Bull, wherein he affirms, that after the translation of the Roman Empire from the Grecians to the Germans by his predecessours the Popes, Dat. Avi­nionae, an. 1323. apud Gold. p. 1. pag. 98. summus ille honor beneficium Pontificis Maxi­miesse solet: the Empire used to be the Popes gift. Adding, that the elections of the German Princes were invalid, unlesse the Pope (universi orbis Christiani Pater atque Princeps, Dei Optimi Maximi Legatus suo nu­mine faveat & aspiret,) should approve it. And finally, commanding the Emperour to quit his Crown and Imperial dignity, and not to reassume them but by his command, nisi jussu & mandato nostro. But the Emperour appea­led, In [...] Reinensibus [...] Franco­surtensibus. the Electours and other Princes pro­tested against the Popes pretended power; And the Emperour and all the States of the Empire made a solemn constitution against it.

[Page 165] This was the second repulse, yet the Popes were not so easily shaken off; It fortuned about the year 1400, Goldast. part. 1. pag. 142. that the Electoral Colledge deposed Wenceslaus from the Empire, and chose Rupert Prince Pala­tine in his place, communicating the whole businesse, whilest it was in agitation, to the Pope, to have his spiritual advice, and the countenance of the Apostolique See; but yet reserving the power entirely to themselves. Howsoever Pope Boniface the ninth layes hold of this opportunity, and declares by his Bull, that the Electours did it by his au­thority, authoritate nostrâ suffulti. And confirmes the said deprivation as good and lawful.

This incertainty of succession, and this Papal pretension made sundry Emperours more fearful to grapple with the Popes, or to right themselves from their grievous exactions and usurpations. In the year 1455. after the death of Nicholas the fifth, the Ger­mans bewailed their condition to Frederick the third, Plat. in Pio [...]0. and sought to perswade him that he would no longer obey the Roman Bishops, unlesse they would at least give way to a pragmatical sancti­on for the maintenance of the liberties of the German Nation; like that of the French Kings for the priviledges of the Gallicane Church. They shewed thar their condition was much worse then the French and Italians. whose servants (especially the Italians) without a change they were deservedly [Page 166] called. Rogabant, urgebant Proceres, populique Germaniae gravissimis tum rationibus tum ex­emplis, Carol. Molinaeus in Commentae­riis. tum utilitatem tum necessitatem Impe­rii, &c. The Princes and people of Germany intreated and pressed both the advantage and necessity of the Empire. They implored his fide­lity, they prayed him for his Oathes sake, and to prevent the infamy and dishonour of their Na­tion, that they alone might not want the fruit of their National decrees, that he had as much power, and was as much obliged thereunto as other Kings, &c. Nec certè procul abfuit, &c. It wanted not much, Plat. ibidem. Molin. ibidem. saith Platina. Molinaeus goes further, His rationibus victus & permotus Imperator, &c. The Emperour being overcome and moved with these reasons, was about to make as full a Sanction for his Subjects, as the King of France had done for his. What hindered him? Onely the advice of Aeneas Sylvius, who perswaded him rather to comply with the Pope, then with his people, upon this ground, that Princes disagreeing might be re­conciled, but between a Prince and his people, the enmity was immortal. Motus hac ratione Imperator, Plat. ibidem. spretâ populorum postulatione, Ae­neam Oratorem deligit qui ad Calistum mitte­retur. The Emperour being moved with this reason, despising the request of his people, sends the same Aeneas as his Ambassadour to Calistus. The truth is this, The Emperour feared the Pope, and durst not trust his own Subjects. Whence it proceeded, that seven years be­fore his death he not onely procured his son [Page 167] Maximilian to be crowned King of the Romans, but also took him to be his com­panion in the Empire, ne post obitum suum (ut factum fuisset) transfereretur imperium in aliam familiam: Molin. lest the Empire after his death (as without doubt it had come to passe) should have been transferred into another family. Yet notwithstanding these barres or remora's, the uncertainty of succession, and Papal pretensions, the Emperours have done as much in relation to the Court of Rome, as the Kings of England.

First, Henry the eighth within his own Dominions did exercise a power of convo­cating Ecclesiasticall Synods, confirming Synods, reforming the Church by Synods, and suppressing upstart innovations by an­cient Canons. The Emperours have done the same; Emperours convocated and con­firmed Sy­nods, and by them reform­ed the Church. Apud Gol­dastum. part. 1. pag. 3. Charles the Great called the Councel of Franckford, consisting of 300. Bishops: Witnesse his own letter to Eli­pandus. Iussimus Sanctorum Patrum Syno­dale ex omnibus undi (que) nostrae ditionis Ecclesits congregari Concilium. VVe have commanded a Synodical Councel to be congregated out of all the Churches within Our Dominions. Neither did he onely convocate it, but confirm it also. Ecce ego vestris petitionibus satisfaciens, congregationi Sacerdotum auditor & arbiter adsedi. Discernimus & Deo donante decrevi­mus quid esset de hac inquisitione firmiter tenen­dum. Behold, I satisfying your requests (that is, of the Elipandians and Foelicians who made [Page 168] Christ but an adoptive son of God,) did sit in the Councel both as an hearer, and as a Iudge. VVe determine and by the gift of God have de­creed what is to be held in this inquiry. And it is very observable how he disposed the resolutions of this Councel into four Books; The first book contained the sense of the Roman Bishop and his Suffragans; Ibidem. The second of the Archbishop of Millain and the Patriarch of Aquileia, with the rest of the Italian Bishops; The third, the votes of the German, French, and British Bishops; The last, his own consent. The Romans had no more part therein then others, to set down their own faith, and to represent what they had received from the Apo­stles.

Neither did they onely convocate Coun­cels, Lib. 5. ca­pitul. and confirm them, but in them and by them reformed innovations, and restored ancient truths and Orders. So did the same Emperour, By the counsel of our Bishops and Nobles we have ordained Bishops through­out the Cities, and do decree to assemble a Synod every year, that in our presence the Canenical decrees and lawes of the Church may be rest­ored. Ludovicus Pius convocated a Councel at Aquisgrane to reform the abuses of the Clergy, and confirmed the same, and com­manded the constitutions thereof to be put in execution, Goldast. p. 1. pag. 12. as appeareth by his own Epistle to Arno Archbishop of Salzburge. Otho the first called a Councel at Rome, and caused [Page 169] Iohn the 12 ^th. to be deposed, and Leo the eighth to be chosen in his place. The sen­tence of the Councel was, Petimus magnitu­dinem Imperii vestri, Idem. p. 1. pag. 34. &c. VVe beseech your Imperial Majestie, that such a Monster may be thrust out of the Roman Church. And the Emperour confirmed it with a placet, we are pleased.

Henry the fourth called a German Synod at VVormes, And another of Germans and Italians at Brixia, wherein sentence of de­privation was given against Gregorie the seventh, and confirmed by the Emperour. Quorum sententiae quòd justa & probabilis coram Deo hominibús (que) Id. p. 45: & 50. videbatur, &c. ego [...]quo (que) assentiens omne tibi Papatûs jus quod habere visus es abrenuncio, &c. Ego Henricus Rex Dei gratiâ cum omnibus Episcopis nostris tibi dicimus, Descende, descende: To whose sentence because it seemed just and reasonable before God and men, I also assenting, do declare thee to have no right in the Papacy, as thou seemest to have. I Henry by the Grace of God King of the Romans, with all our Bishops do say unto thee, Descend from thy Seat, descend.

So Frederick the first called a Councel at Papia, to settle the right succession of the Papacy, wherein Roland the Cardinal was rejected, and Victor declared lawful Bishop of Rome. And all this was done with due submission to the Emperour. Goldast. part. 1. pag. 70. Christianissi­mus Imperator, &c. The most Christian Em­perour [Page 170] in the last place after all the Bishops and Clergy, by the advice and upon the petition of the Councel, received and approved the election of Victor.

I will conclude this first part of the paral­lel with the words of the same Emperour, in the same Councel, Quamvis noverim officio ac dignitate Imperii penes nos esse potestatem congregandorum Conciliorum, &c. Although I know that by vertue of our office and Imperial dignity, the power of calling Councels rests in us, Rodevic. de Gestis Fred. 1. lib. 2. c. 56. especially in so great dangers of the Church: For both Constantine, and Theodosius, and Justinian, and of fresher memory Charles the Great and Otho, Emperours, are recorded to have done this; Yet I do commit the authority of determining this great and high businesse to your wisdome and power, that is, to the Bishops there assembled.

But it may be objected, The En­glish Re­formation not Schis­matical. that the Empe­rours with their Synods never made any such Schismatical reformation, as that which was made by the Protestants in England. I answer, First, that the Schisme between the Roman Court and the English Church, (other Schisme I know none on our parts) was begun long before that reformation in the daies of Henry the eighth, and the breach sufficiently proclaimed to the world, both by Romish Bulls and English Statutes. We could not be the first separatours of our selves from them, who had formerly thrust us out of their doors. It is not Schismati­cal [Page 171] to substract obedience from them to whom it is not due, who had extruded us out of their Society: but it is Schismatical to give just cause of substraction.

Secondly, I answer, That there was a great necessity of Reformation both in Ger­many and England. For proof whereof, I produce two witnesses beyond exception, the one a Pope, the other a Cardinal. The former is Adrian the sixth, in his instructi­ons to his Legate, in the year 1522. which the Princes of the Empire take notice of in their auswer. Goldast. part. 2. pag. 29. ct. 31. His words are these, Scimus in hac Sancta sede aliquot jam annis multa ab­hominanda fuisse, &c. VVe know that for some by-past yeares many things to be abominated have been in this holy See, abuses in spiritual matters, excesses in commands; and to conclude, all things out of order, &c. wherein for so much as concerns us, thou shalt promise that we will use all our endeavour, that first this Court from whence peradventure (sure enough) all the evil did spring, may be reformed, that as corruption did flow from thence to the inferiour parts (of the Church), so may health and Reformation. To procure which, we do hold our selves so much more strictly obliged, by how much we do see the whole world greedily desire such a Reformation. O Adriane, si nunc viveres.

The other witnesse is Cardinal Pool, who makes two main ends of the Councel of Trent: The one, the reconciling of the Lu­therans; The other, quo pacto ipsius Eccle­siae [Page 172] praecipua, vel potiùs omnia ferè mem­bra, ad veterem disciplinam & instituta, à quibus non parùm declinârunt, revocentur. To consider how the principal members of the Church, Regin. Polus de Concilio, pag. 86. or rather almost all the members, might be reduced to their ancient discipline and Ordi­nances, from which they had swerved much. Yet when himself was sent afterwards by Paul the fourth to reform the Church of En­gland, Reformatio Angliae, edit, Venet. 1562. it seemeth that he had forgotten those great deviations of the principall members, and those very representations which he himself with eight other selected Cardinals and Prelates had made upon oath to Paul the third: Then he saw that this lying flattering principle, that The Pop [...] is the Lord of all benefices, and therefore cannot be a Simoniack, Concil. de lect. Cardi­nal. edit. Lutet. an. 1612. pag. 131, &c. was the fountain, ex quo tan­quam ex equo Trojano irrupere in Eccle­siam Dei tot abusus, et tam gravissimi mor­bi, &c. from which as from the Trojan horse so many abuses and so grievous diseases had bro­ken into the Church of God, and brought it to a desperate condition, to the derision of Christian Religion, and blaspheming of the Name of Christ: And that the cure must begin there, from whence the disease did spring, by taking away all abu­ses in dispensations of all kinds, and ordina­tions, and collations, and provisions, and pensions▪ and permutations, and reservati­tions, and coadjutorships, and expectative graces, and unions, and non-residence, and exemptions, and absolutions, and all such [Page 173] pecuniary artifices: because it is not lawful by any means to reap any gain from the exer­cise of the power of the Keyes. Tollantur (say they) hae maculae, &c. Let these spots be taken away, to which if any entrance be given in any Common-wealth or Kingdom whatsoever, it must needs fall headlong instantly or very shortly to ruine. Pag. 140.

Thirdly, I answer, that the Emperours and the German Church did not onely desire a reformation, An. 1415. as appeareth by the Letter of Sigismond the Emperour to the King of France, Maximo deside [...]io jamdudum tene­bamur, &c. We have long desired greatly to see the onely Spouse of Christ the Catholick Church happily reformed in our daies, Goldast. part. 1. pag. 146. but after we were assumed to the Imperial Government, our desire passed into command, &c. And the advises of Constance conceived by the Depu­ties of the German Nation in that Councel, against some special abuses of the Pope and his Cardinals: And by the advises of Ments made and concluded in that City by the States of the Empire, Id [...]m. pag. 149. in the time of the Councel of Basile, for preserving the autho­rity of General Councels; for relief from grievances; Id [...]m. pag. 155. for procuring of conditions from the Pope; for preservation of their just liberties; and for prevention of the abuses, and excesses, and extortions of the Roman Court: Idem. p. 2▪ pag. 36▪ And by the hundred Grie­vances of the German Nation proposed to the Popes Legate by the Princes and Lords of [Page 174] the Roman Empire, against the injuries, ex­tortions, and usurpations of the See of Rome, and the incroachments and oppres­sions of Ecclesiastical Courts, and persons: And lastly, by the gracious promise of Charles the fifth to hold a Dyett within half a year, wherein it should be resolved, what way the differences in Religion should be settled and quieted, Idem p. 2. pag. 177. whether by a Gene­ral, or National Councel, or Imperial Dyett.

Neither did the Emperour and the Ger­man Nation onely indeavour to reform, but they did in some measure actually reform the excesses of the Roman Court, and other Ecclesiastical abuses and innovations; as it hath already been verified of Charles the Great, Gold. p. 1. pag. 207. and Ludovicus Pius. This appear­eth yet more plainly by the concordates (as they are stiled) of the German Nation with Gregory the 13 ^th: And the agreements of Frederick the third and the Princes of the Empire with Pope Nicholas the fifth, where­by the excesses and abuses of the Roman Court are something abated, and reduced: Id. p. 211. And by the Ghostly or Ecclesiastical refor­mation made by Sigismond the Emperour, Idem. pag. 170. in the year 1436, containing 37 Chapters or Articles, for regulating the Pope and his Court, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Suffragans, Abbats, Monks, Friars, Nunnes, and all sorts of Ecclesiastical or religious persons.

[Page 175]I cannot here omit a witty answer of this Emperour, as he was deliberating with some Ecclesiastical persons about a Reformation, and one said it must begin with the Mi­nimes. Catalog. te­stium veri­tatis. No, said he, non à Minoritis, sed à Majoritis, not with the Minimes, but with the Maximes, or great ones, that is, the Pope and the Cardinals, and the Court of Rome.

This appeares also by the Interim, or de­claration of Religion made by Charles the fifth, attested with his Imperial seal, and accepted and approved by the States of the Empire, assembled in a Dyett at Ausburge, May 15. Gold. part. 2. p. 109. in the year, 1548, where the whole exercise of Religion is established, untill the definition of a Councel. I produce it not to shew what it was, but what power the Emperour did assume in point of Religion; wherein these words are contained: Quod autem in supradicta declaratione sub ru­brica, de caeremoniis & usu Sacramentorum inter alia dicitur, [in quas tamen si quid ir­repsit quod causam dare possit superstitioni, tol­latur.] Reservat sibi soli Caesarea Majestas, &c. And whereas in the aforesaid declaration, under the rubrick of ceremonies and the use of the Sacraments, among other things it is said, [into the which neverthelesse if any thing have crept that may administer occasion of supersti­tion, let it be taken away.] His Imperial Ma­jestie doth reserve unto himself alone in this and the like Articles, where and as often as it shall [Page 176] be needful, now and hereafter, the right to correct, to adde, to detract, as it shall seem just and equal to himself, according to the present exigence of affaires.

Lastly, Gold. part. 2. p. 197. this appeareth by the declaration of Ferdinand the Emperour made in the year 1555, in favour of the Augustane Confes­sion, and the professours thereof.

Secondly, the Kings of England in their great Councels did make themselves the last Judges of the liberties and grievances and necessities of their people, even in cases Ec­clesiastical, not the Pope. They had reason. In vain is the Court of Romes determina­tion expected against it self. The Empe­rours did the same. Gold. p. 1. p. 103. So Lodovic the fourth in his Apology against Pope Iohn the 22 ^th. de­clareth, that the Pope ought not, cannot be a competent Judge in his own cause. The Pope challenged such a confirmation of the Emperour, without which his election was invalid. The Emperour determined the contrary in the Dyet of Frankford, An. 1338. Declaramus quòd Imperialis dignitas est imme­diatè à solo Deo, Idem pag. 99. &c. We declare that the Im­perial dignity is immediately from God alone; And that election gives a sufficient title, The Empe­rours made themselves the last Judges of their liber­ties and necessities. And that the Popes approbation or disapprobation sig­nifies nothing. The Pope attempted to di­vide Italy from the German Empire, by his fulnesse of power. The Emperour declares the Act to be invalid, and of no mo­ment.

[Page 177]When the Princes and States of the Em­pire had presented the hundred grievances of the German Nation to the Popes Legate, they adde this conclusion: Goldast. part. 2. pag. 58. Quod si enume­rat [...] onera at (que) gravamina, &c. But if the abovesaid burthens and grievances be not remo­ved within the time limited or sooner from the eyes of men, and abolished and abrogated, (which the Lay-States of the Empire do not expect,) then they would not have his Holinesse to be igno­rant, that they neither can nor will bear or indure the aforesaid most pressing and intolerable bur­thens any longer, but find out other means of ease, and vindicate their former liberties and immunities. As the sense of their suf­ferings was their own, so they would have the remedy to be their own, and not leave the cure to a tyrannical Court.

To this adde the Protestation and the Oath of the Electoral Colledge and the other Princes of the Empire, mentioned in their letter to Benedict the 12 ^th. Quod jura, honores, bona, libertates, & consuetudines Im­perii, Idem p. 1. pag. 100. &c. That they would maintain, defend and preserve inviolated, with all their power and might, the rights, honours, goods, liberties, and customes of the Empire, and their own Electo­ral right belonging to them by law or custome, against all men, of what preheminence, dignity, or state soever, (that is to say in plain termes, against the Pope and his Court,) notwith­standing any perils or mandates, or processes whatsoever, that is, notwithstanding any [Page 178] citations, or bulls, or excommunications, or interdictions from Rome.

Take but one instance more: Ferdinand the present Emperour out of an unavoid­able necessity, to extinguish the flame of a bloody intestine war, and to save the Em­pire from utter ruine, contracts a peace with the King of France, the Swedes, and their adherents, whereby sundry Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical dignities were con­ferred upon Protestants, lands and other hereditaments of great value were alienated from the Church in perpetuity, free exercise of their Religion was granted to those of the Augustan Confession, Annates, confir­mations, and other pretended Papal rights were abolished. The Popes extraordinary Nuncio protested against it: And Pope Innocent himself by his Bull bearing date Novemb. 26. in the year 1651, [...] declared the contract to be void, annulled it, and con­demned it as injurious and prejudicaial to the Orth [...]dox Religion, to the See of Rome, and to the rights of Holy Church, notwithstanding the municipal Lawes and immemorial customes of the Empire, and notwithstanding any Oathes taken for the observation thereof. Yet the Em­perour and the Princes of Germany stand to their contracts, assert the municipal lawes and customes of the Empire; And assume unto themselves to be the onely Judges of their own priviledges and necessities.

Thirdly, Henry the eighth challenged to [Page 179] himself the patronage of Bishopricks, and investitures of Bishops, within his own Dominions. The Emperours did more: Adrian the fourth taxed Frederick the first for requiring homage and fealty of Bishops, Gold. par [...]. 1. pag. 58. Et manus eorum sacratas manib [...]s tuis innectis, Emperours injoyed investitures. and that he held their consecrated hands in his hands. The Emperour denyed it not, but justified it, Ab his qui regalia nostra tenent, cur homagium & regalia Sacramenta non exi­gamus? why may we not require homage and Oathes of Allegiance from them who hold their Lands of our Imperial Crown? The Eccle­siastical Lords in their letter to Innocent the third do acknowledge, that the fees which they held from the Empire, they had received at the hands of Otho the fourth, and had done him homage and sworn fealty to him. And this before his Imperiall Coronation at Rome.

Henry the fifth goes yet further, and ac­cuseth Pope Paschal, that without any hear­ing he sought to take away from the Empire the investitures of Bishops which the Empe­rours his predecessours had enjoyed from the time of Charlemain by the space of 400 yeares and upwards: Id. p. 53. A fair prescription. But this is not all; The Emperours did long injoy the patronage of the Papacy it self, and the disposition of the Roman Bishoprick▪ Adrian the first with the whole Clergy and people of Rome quitted all their claim, right and interest to Charles the Great, Id. p▪ [...]. as well in the [Page 180] elections of the Popes, as investitures of Bishops. P. 34. And Leo the eighth did the like to Otho the first, which is a truth in history so apparent, that no man can deny it with his credit, nor question it with reason.

Fourthly, the Kings of England suffered no appeales to Rome out of their Kingdoms, nor Roman Legates to enter into their Dominions, without their License. No more did the Emperours, though they ac­knowledge the Roman Bishop to be their Patriarch, which we do not. Hadrian the fourth complained of Frederick the first, Id. pag 58. & 61. That he shut both the Churches and the Cities of his Kingdom against the Popes Legates à latere. Emnperours have ex­cluded Le­gate [...], &c. And more fully in his letter to the German Bishops, that he had made an edict, that no man out of his Kingdome should have recourse to the Apostolique See. To the former part of the charge the Emperour answers, Cardinalibus vestris clausae sunt Ecclesiae, & non patent civitates, quia non videmus eo [...] praedicatores, sed praedatores; non pacis cor­roboratores, sed pecuniae raptores; non orbis reparatores, sed auri insatiabiles corrasores: Our Churches and Cities are shut to your Car­dinals, Pag. 59. because we do not see them Preachers, but robbers; not confirmers of peace, but extorting catchers of money; not repairers of the world, but insatiable scrapers together of gold: Thus much he writ to the Pope himself. To the second part of the charge he answers, That he had not shut up the entrance into Italy, or the [Page 181] passage out of Italy by edict, nor would shut it up to travellers, or such as had necessary occa­sions, and the testimony of their Bishops for their voyage to the Sea of Rome, but he intended to remedy those abuses, Ch▪. 13. by which all the Churches of his Kingdome were burthened and impove­rished. Ch. 5, 6, 7, 8. That the whole body of the Empire were of the same mind, it appeares by the Advises of Ments; And by the hundred grievances of the German Nation, which the Princes and Peeres of the Empire pro­tested that they neither could nor would indure any longer.

Fifthly, And ne­glected the Popes Bulls, &c. the Kings of England declared the Popes Bulls to be void: They had good reason, for they were not under his Juris­diction, nor within the sphere of his acti­vity: The Emperours did not so generally, but yet they took upon them to be Judges whether the Popes key did erre or not▪ Pius the second by his Bull condemned all appeales from the Pope to a General Councel, An. 1459 as erroneous, detestable, void and pestilent, and subjected all those who should use them after two moneths to execration, ipso facto, of what condition soever they were, Emperours, Kings or Bishops. Yet long after this Charles the fifth appealed from Clement the seventh to a Generall Councel; Anno 1526. Rescript. Car. 5. ad Criminal. P. Clem. 7. Ad sacri Generalis Concilii & totius Christianitatis cognitionem et judi­cium remittenda censuimus, Illiq (que) nos et omnia quae cum S. vestra habere possumus, [Page 182] aut deinceps habituri sumus omnino subji­cimus. Wherein he did but insist in the steps of his predecessours. Lewis the fourth did the same to Iohn the 22 ^th. And in the Dyet of Frankford decreed them all that should assent to the Popes Bull to be guilty of treason, Gold. p. 1. pag. 99. and to have forfeited all their fees which they held of the Empire; because the sentence of a Pope contrary to God, or to holy Scripture, or to that due obedience which a Subject owes to his Prince, is of no moment or validity: And such the Princes and Peeres of the Empire did unanimously declare the Popes Bull to be, contra Deum, & justitiam, & juris ordinem, contrary to God, contrary to holy Scripture, and contrary to due order of Law. P. 100. [...]

Sixthly, And seized upon Papal pretended rights. Henry the eighth deprived the Pope of his Annates, tenths, and first fruits in England, of his pall-money, and other extorted revenues. What did the Empe­rour and the Germans lesse then he? In the advises of Ments it is concluded, that the Pope shall receive nothing either before or after for confirmations, elections, admissi­ons, Cap. 10. collations, provisions, presentations, holy order, palles, benedictions, &c. upon pain that the transgressour thereof either in exacting, or giving, or promising, should in­curre the punishment due to a Simoniacal per­son. In Conclu­sione S [...]ss. 21. And though these were but Advises, yet the King of the Romans and Ele­ctors did covenant mutually to assist and defend one another in the maintenance of [Page 183] them against all men; And yet further pro­cured them to be confirmed and inlarged in the Councel of Basile, by the addition of investitures, bulls, annates, first fruits, &c. This was too sweet a morsel for the Pope to lose willingly, when the Archbishop of Ments paid for his pall (worth about sixe pence) thirty thousand Florens.

By the Concordates or accord made be­tween the Emperour and Princes of Ger­many, and Nicholas the fifth, the Annates are in part remitted or taken away. The Estates of the Empire assembled at Nuren­berge represented to Adrian the sixth, that Annates were given for maintenance of the war against the Turks, Gold. p [...]rt. 2. pag. 24. [...] 32. and how comely a thing it were that they should be restored to the same use. The Princes added further, That they were but granted for a certain term, which was effluxed. The hundred Grievances rest not here, but say moreover, that they were but deposited at Rome, to be preserved faithfully for that use. Cap. 19. Resc. Num. 44. And lastly, Charles the fifth in his Rescript tells the Pope, That other Kings do not suffer the spoyles of the Churches and Annates to be transported out of their Kingdoms to Rome, so universally, and so abundantly.

Seventhly, to draw to a conclusion, And have imposed Oaths of allegiance. Henry the eighth imposed an oath of fidelity or al­legiance upon his Subjects, Ecclesiastical as well as temporal. So did Frederick the first Emperour of that name: Gold. part. 1. pag. 64. I swear that from henceforth I will be faithful to my Liege Lord, [Page 184] Frederick the Emperour of the Romans against all men (the Pope is included, or rather intended principally) as by Law I am bound, And I will help him to retain his Imperiall Crown, and all his honour in Italy, &c.

Henry the eighth took away Popish par­dons, The Ger­mans against Par­dons, Indulgences, &c. and indulgences, and dispensations; The German Nation likewise groaned un­der the burthen of them. Among their hundred grievances, that of dispensations was the first; And that of Papal Indulgen­ces the third, either for sins past, or to come, modo tinneat dextrâ, (it is their own phrase.) They call these artifices meer im­postures, Gravam. 1. & 3. by which the very marrow of Germa­ [...]y was sucked up, their ancient liberty was enervated, and the merit of Christs passion be­came sleighted.

Lastly, Henry the eighth abolished the usurped jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, within his Dominions. Emperours have depo­sed Popes, and appea­led from them, &c. The Emperours did not so, whether they thought it not fit to leave an old Patriarch; Or because they did not sufficiently consider the right bounds of Imperial power, especially being seconded with the authority of an Occiden­tal Councel; or because they did not so clearly distinguish between a beginning of unity and an universality of Jurisdiction; or because they had other remedies where­with to help themselves, I cannot deter­mine. But this we have seen, That the Emperours have deposed Popes, and have [Page 185] appealed from Popes to General Councels; And have maintained their Imperial prero­gatives against Popes, and made themselves the last Judges of the liberties and necessi­ties of the whole body Politique.

Frederick the third in the Dyet of Nu­renburg sequestred all the moneys that should be raised in three years from Indulgences and absolutions, Gold. part. 1. pag. 214. Num. 8. whether Papal or Conci­liary, towards the raising of twenty thousand men for defence of the Empire against the Turk. The resolution of the Elect Arch-Bishop of Trevers against Gregory the 7 ^th. was this, Ne plus per hunc Sancta, quae modo extremum tra [...]it spiritum, periclit [...]tur Ecclesia, ex me dic [...], quod nullam ei posthac obedientiam servabo, Pag. 47. &c. Lest the holy Church which is now brought to the last gasp incurre more danger by his means, I speak of my self, that hereafter I will perform no obedience to him, (that is, Pope Hildebrand). Neither was this his resolu­tion alone. All the German Bishops were of the same mind: Because thy entrance into the Papacy was begun with so great perjuries; And the Church of God is brought into such a grievous storm through the abuse of thy innova­tions, and thy life and conversation is soiled with so manifold infamy: As we promised thee no obedience, Et 48. so we let thee know, that for the fu­ture we will perform none unto thee. Et quia nemo nostrum (ut publice declamas) tibi hactenus [...]uit Episcopus, ita nulli nostrum [...] modo eris Apostolicus: And as thou hast [Page 186] reputed none of us for Bishops hitherto; So hereafter none of us will esteem thee for the Suc­cessour of Saint Peter. Which sentence was confirmed by the Emperour: Ego Henricus Rex cum omnibus Episcopis meis tibi dico, De­se [...]nde, descende.

The first Councel of Pisa did not onely substract their obedience from Peter de Luna, calling himself Benedict the 13 ^th. and Angelus de Gorario calling himself Gregory the 12 ^th. But they decreed that it was lawful for all Christians, and accordingly did command them to substract their obe­dience from them. Of which Councel the Councel of Constance was a continuation. S [...]ss. 8. [...]t 9. S [...]ss. ultima. promot. Con­c [...]l. P [...]sani pag. 32. [...]t 172. The second Councel of Pisa suspended Iu­lius the second, from the Papacy, and com­manded all Christians to withdraw their obedience from him. The former had the consent of the Emperour: The later, his assistance and protection; as appeareth both by the solemn promise of the Empe­rours Ambassadours made in Councel, and the acknowledgment of the Councel it self.

I will conclude this first part of my paral­lell concerning the Empire with two an­swers of German Bishops. The first of the German and French to Anastasius the second, wherein they tell him plainly, that they did not understand that new compassion, which the Italian Physicians used to cure the infirmities of France. They [...]axe them for seeking to [Page 187] restrain the absolution of souls to Rome. They require that Italian Bishop that is without sin to cast the first stone at them; They advise them not to use their pretend­ed authority against their Bishops, lest the blow should recoile upon themselves, for that theirs had not learned to fear above that which was needfull: they tell them that surely they in Italy, think that the Galles had lost all these three, Verbum, ferrum, & ingenium, their tongues, their wits, and their weapons.

And so they conclude, Ex schedis Ioannis Av [...]ntini apud Gol­dast. in Rationali p. 48. Etiamsi inclinata esset arca testamenti nostri, nostrorum Episco­porum esset, & non illorum, inclinatam rele­vare. Although the arke of their Covenant was falling, yet it belonged to their own Bi­shops, and not to them, to lift it up again.

The other answer was of the Archbishops of Colone and Triers, with the Synod of Coloegne to Nicholas the first. Wherein af­ter many bitter expressions they have these words, His de causis nos cum fratribus nostris & collegis, neque edictis tuis stamus, neque vocem tuam agnoscimus, nequo tuas bullas toni­truaque tua timemus. For these reasons we with our brethren and collegues, do neither give place to thy edicts, nor acknowledge thy voyce, nor fear thy thundring bulles. Ibid. p. 50.

I expect that some will be ready to object, that these substractions were but personal, from the present Pope, not from the See of Rome, which is true in part. But the same [Page 188] equity and rule of justice which warrants a separation from the person of the Pope, for personal faults, doth also justifie a more durable separation from the See of Rome, that is from him and his Successours, for faulty rules and principles, either in doctrine or discipline, untill they be reformed.

From Germany our passe is open into France. The French no vassals of the Ro­man Court. where the case is as clear as the Sun, how their Kings, (though acknowledged by the Popes themselves to be most Christian, the eldest Sons of the Church, and other­wise the great Patrons and Protectours of the Romane See,) with their Princes of the blood, their Peers, their Parliaments, their Ambassodours, their Schools and Universi­ties have all of them, in all ages, affront­ed and curbed the Roman Court, and re­duced them to a right temper and constitu­tion, as often as they deviated from the Canons of the Fathers, and incroached upon the liberties of the Gallicane Church. Where­by the Popes jurisdiction in France came to be meerly discretionary, at the pleasure of the King.

Hincmare had been condemned by three French Synods for a turbulent person, and deposed. Pope Adrian the second takes Cognisance of the cause at Rome, and re­quires Carolus Calvus the King of France to send Hincmare thither with his accusers, to receive justice. The Kings apologetick an­swer will shew how he relished it. Valde [Page 189] mirati sumus ubi hoc dictator Epistolae scriptum invenerit, esse Apostolica authori­tate praecipiendum, Goldast. Constitut. Imper. p. 1. pag. 24. ut Rex corrector iniquo­rum & districtor reorum, atque secundum leges Ecclesiasticas atque mundanas ultor criminum, reum legaliter ac regulariter pro excessibus suis damnatum, sua fretum potentia Roman dirigat. We wondered much where he who dictated the Popes Letter hath found it written, as commanded by [...] Apostolical authority, that a King who is the Corrector of the unjust, the punisher of guilty persons, and according to all Lawes Ecclesiastical and Civill the revenger of crimes, should send a guilty per­son, legally and regularly condemned for his excesses, to Rome. He tells him, that the Kings of France were reputed terrarum Domini, not Episcoporum Vice-Domini, or Villici; Lords paramount within their Domi­nions, not Licutenants or Bayliffes of Bishops. Quis igitur hanc inversam legem infernus evomuit? quis tartarus de suis abditis & tenebrosis cuniculis eructavit? What hell hath disgorged this disorderly law? what bot­tomlesse depth hath belched it up out of its hidden and obscure holes?

The Kings of France have convented the Popes before them; So Charles the Great dealt with Leo the third, and Lotha­rius with Leo the fourth.

The Kings of France have appealed from Popes to Councels: So Philip the 4 ^th. with [Page 190] the advise of all the orders of France and the whole Gallicane Church, appealed from Boniface the eighth, and commanded his ap­peal to be published in the great Church at Paris. So Henry the great appealed from Gregory the 14 ^th. and caused his appeal to be affixed▪ to the gates of Saint Peters Church in Rome. So the School of Sorbone appealed from Boniface the eight, Benedict the eleventh, Pius the second, and Leo the tenth.

The Kings of France have protested against the Popes decrees and sleighted them, yea, in the very face of the Councel of Trent. Witnesse that protestation of the Ambassadour of France, made in the Councel in the name of the King his Master. ‘We refuse to be subject to the com­mands and disposition of Pius the fourth, Goldast. [...] 3. p. 571. we reject, refuse and contemn all the judgements, censures and decrees of the said Pius. And although (most holy Fathers) your Religion, Life and Learn­ing was ever, and ever shall be of great esteem with us; Yet seeing indeed you do nothing, but all things are done at Rome rather then at Trent: And the things that are here published, are rather the decrees of Pius the fourth, then of the Councel of Trent, we denounce and pro­test here before you all, that whatsoever things are decreed and published in this [Page 191] Assembly by the meer will and pleasure of Pius neither the most Christian King will ever approve, nor the French Church ever acknowledge to be decrees of a Ge­neral Councel. Besides this, the King our Master commandeth all his Archbi­shops and Bishops and Abbats, to leave this Assembly and presently to depart hence, then to return again, when there shall be hope of better and more orderly proceedings.’ This was high and smart for the King and the Gallicane Church, so publickly to reject, refuse and contemn all Papal decrees, and to challenge such an interest in, and power over the French Archbishops and Bishops, as not onely to license them, but to command them to de­part and leave the Councel, whither they were summoned by the Pope.

The French Kings have made Lawes and constitutions from time to time to repress the insolencies and exorbitances of the Pa­pal Court, so often as they began to pre­judice the liberties of the Gallicane Church, with the unanimous consent of their Prin­ces, Nobles, Clergy, Lawyers, and Com­mons. An. 1267. As against their bestowing of Ec­clesiastical dignities and benefices in France, and their grosse Simony and extor­tions in that way, An. 1406. against the payment of Annates and tenths to Rome, and generally for all the liberties of the Church of France. Against reservations and Apostolical graces, [Page 192] and all other exactions of the Court of Rome. An. 1418. An. 1438. Charl [...]s the seventh made the prag­matical Sanction, to confirm all the Acts of the Councels of Constance and Bas [...]l against the tyranny and usurpation of the Pope. It is true that Lewis the eleventh, by the flat­tering perswasion of Aeneas Sylvius, then Pius the second, did revoke this Sanction. But the Kings Proctour, and the Rectour of the University of Paris did oppose themselves formally to the Registring and Authorizing of this revocation. Where­upon the King desired the advise of his Par­liament in writing, which they gave to this effect, That the revocation of that Sanction tended to the confusio [...] of the whole Ecclesiastical order, the depopulation of France, the exhaust­ing and impoverishment of the Kingdom, and the total ruine of the French Church. Here­upon the King changed his mind, and made diverse declarations and edicts conforma­ble to, As that of August. 16. an. 1478. and in pursuance of the pragmatical Sanction. After this the three Estates assembled at Towers, made it their first and instant request to Charles the 8 ^th. that he would preserve inviolable the pragmatical Sanction, An. 1487. An. 1517. which they reputed as the Palla­dium of France. And in the National Councel assembled by Lewis the 12 ^th. in the same City it was again confirmed.

But the Pope stormed, and thundered, and excommunicated, and interdicted Lewis the 12 ^th. Francis the first, and the [Page 193] whole Realm, and exposed it as a prey to the first that could take it; And gave ple­nary Indulgence to every one that should kill a Frenchman. King Francis fainted un­der such fulminations, and came to a com­position or accommodation with Leo the tenth, which was called conventa, or the concordate: On the one side the Popes friends think he wronged himself and his title to a spiritual Sovereignty very much, by descending to such an accommodation. And exclude France out of the number of those Countries which they term pays d' obe­dience. As if the French were not loyal obedient Subjects, but Rebels to the Court of Rome. On the other side the Prelates▪ the Universities, the Parliaments of France, were as ill contented that the King should yeeld one inch, and opposed the accord: Insomuch, as the University of Paris appea­led from it to a future Councel, and expe­dited Letters Patents sealed with the Uni­versities Seal, Fascicuius rerum expe­tend▪ et fugiend. impressu [...] 1535. containing at large their grievances, and the reasons of the appeal, which after were published to the world in print.

I cannot here omit the free and just speech of a French Bishop; When Henry the fourth had in a manner ended the civill Wars of France, by changing from the Protestant to the Roman Catholique Com­munion: Yet the Pope who favoured the contrary party, upon pretence of his dissi­mulation, [Page 194] and great dangers that might ensue thereupon, for a long time deferred his reconciliation, untill the French Prelates by their own authority did first admit him into the bosome of the Church. At which time one of them used this discourse, Was France all on fire, and had they not Rivers enough at home, but they must run as far as Rome, to Tybur, to fetch water to quench it?

Since that in Cardinal Richlieu's daies it is well known what books were freely prin­ted, and publickly sold upon pont neuf, of the lawfulnesse of erecting a new, or rather restoring an old proper Patriarchate in France, as one of the liberties of the Galli­cane Church. It was well for the Roman Court that they became more propitious to the French affaires.

Take one instance more which happened very lately. The Pope refused to admit any new Bishops in Portugal, upon the nomina­tion of the present King, because he would not thereby seem to acknowledge or ap­prove his title to the Crown, in prejudice of the King of Spain, whereby the Episcopal order in Portugal and the other Dominions belonging to that Crown, was well near ex­tinguished, and scarcely so many Bishops were left alive, or could not be drawn toge­ther, as to make a Canonical Ordination. The three Orders of Portugal did represent to the Pope, Balatus ovium. p. 2. [...] [...]3. that in the Kingdomes of Por­tugal [Page 195] and the Algarbians, wherein ought to have been three Metropolitans and ten Suf­fragans, there was but one left, and he by the Popes dispensation non-Residen [...]. And in all the As [...]atique Provinces but one other, and he both sickly and decrepit. And in all the African and American Provinces and the Islands not one surviving. Lusitania gemitus, p. 20. But the Pope continued inexorable; whereupon they [...] present their request to their neigh­bours and friends the French Prelates, be­seeching them to mediate for them with his Holinesse. And if he continue still obsti­nately deaf to their just petition, to supply his defect themselves, and to Ordain them Bishops in case of necessity. The French did the Office of Neighbours and Christi­ans. The Synode of the French Clergy did write to the Pope on their behalf in April, 1651. But that way not succeeding, they sent one of their Bishops, as an expresse Envoié to his Holinesse, Epist. Cler. Gallicani ad. Innoc. Pap. 10. to let him know that if he still refused, they cannot nor will be wanting to themselves, to their neigh­bours, but would supply his defect; what the issue of it is since, I have not yet heard.

But to leave matter of fact, and to come to the fundamental Lawes and Customes of France. Every one hath heard of the li­berties of the French Church, but every one understands not what those liberties are, as being better known by their practice at [Page 196] home, Traictes des [...] li­berties de l'Egl [...]se Gallicane. then by Books abroad. I will onely select some of them out of their own au­thentique authorities. And when the Rea­der hath considered well of them, let him judge what authority the Pope hath in France, Pro liber­tate Ecclesiae Gallic. ad­versus Ro­man, aeulam def [...]nsia Pa­risiens. Cu­r [...]ae. more then discretionary at the good pleasure of the King, or more then he might have had in other places, if he could have contented himself with reason. Pro­testants are not so undiscreet, or uncharita­ble, as to violate the peace of Christendom, for a primacy or headship of order, with­out superiority of power, or for the name of his Holinesse; Or for a Pall, if the price were not too high, Or for a few innocent formalities.

1. The Pope cannot command or ordain any thing directly or indirectly concerning any tem­poral affairs, within the dominions of the King of France. The liber­t [...]es of the French Church.

2. The spiritual authority and power of the Pope is not absolute in France, but limited and re­strained by the Canons and Rules of the ancient Counc [...]ls of the Church, received in that King­dom. Where observe first, that the Pope can do nothing in France as a Sovereign Spiritual Prince, with his non obstantes, either against the Canons or besides the Canons. Secondly, that the Canons are no Canons in France, except they be received. This [...]ame priviledge was anciently radicated in the fundamental Lawes of England. This priviledge the Popes indeavoured to pluck [Page 197] up by the roots. And the contentions about this priviledge were one principal occasion of the separation.

3. No command whatsoever of the Pope can free the French Clergy from their obligation to obey the commands of their Sovereign.

4. The most Christian King hath had power at all times, according to the occur­rence and exigence of affairs, to assemble or cause to be assembled Synods, Provincial or National, and therein to treat not onely of such things as concern the conservation of the Civil estate, but also of such things as con­cern Ecclesiastical order and discipline in his own dominions. And therein to make Rules, Chapters, Lawes, Ordinances, and pragma­tique sanctions in his own name, & by his own authority. Many of which have been re­ceived among the decrees of the Catholick Church, and some of them approved by general Councels.

5. The Pope cannot send a Legate à latere into France, with power to reform, judge, col­late, dispense, or do such other things ac­customed to be specified in the authoritative Bull of his Legation, except it be upon the desire, or with the approbation of the most Christian King. Neither can the said Le­gate execute his charge untill he hath pro­mised the King in writing, under his oath upon his holy orders, not to make use of his Legantine power in the Kings Dominions longer then it shall please the King. And [Page 198] that so soon as he shall be admonished of the Kings pleasure to forbid it, he will give it over: And that whilest he doth use it, it shall be exercised conformably to the Kings will, without attempting any thing to the prejudice of the decrees of Generall Councels, or the liberties and priviledges of the Gallicane Church, and the Universities of France.

6. The Commissions and Bulls of the Popes Legates are to be seen, examined, and approved by the Court of Parliament. And to be regi­stred and published with such Cautions, and modifications as that Court shall judge expedient for the good of the Kingdome, and to▪ be▪ executed according to the said cauti­ons, and not otherwise.

7. The Prelates of the French Church, (although commanded by the Pope,) for what cause soever it be, may not depart out of the Kingdom, without the Kings Commandment of License.

8. The Pope can neither by himself nor by his Delegates judge of any thing which concerneth the state, preheminence, or pri­viledges of the Crown of France, nor of any thing pertaining to it: Nor can there be any question or processe about the state or pretensions of the King, but in his own Courts.

9. Papal Bulls, Citations, Sentences, Ex­communications, and the like, are not to be executed in France without the Kings Com­mand, [Page 199] or permission: And after permis­sion, onely by authority of the King, and not by authority of the Pope, to shun con­fusion and mixture of Jurisdictions.

10. Neither the King nor his Realm, nor his Officers can be excommunicated or interdicted by the Pope, nor his Subjects absolved from their Oath of Allegiance.

11. The Pope cannot impose Pensions in France upon any benefices having cure of soules, nor upon any others, but according to the Canons, according to the expresse condition of the resignation, or ad redimen­dum vexationem.

12 All Bulls and Missives which come from Rome to France are to be seen and visited, to try if there be nothing in them prejudi­cial in any manner to the estate and liberties of the Church of France, or to the Royal authority.

13 It is lawful to appeal from the Pope to a future Councel.

14 Ecclesiastical persons may be conven­ted, judged, and sentenced before a secular Judge for the first grievous or enormious crime, or for lesser offences after a relapse, which renders them incorrigible in the eye of the Law.

15. All the Prelates of France are obliged to swear fea [...]ty to the King, and to receive from him their investitu [...]es for their fees and manours.

16. The Courts of Parliament in case of [Page 200] appeales as from abuse have right and power to declare null, void, and to revoke the Popes Bulls and Excommunications, and to forbid the execution of them, when they are found contrary to sacred decrees, the liber­ties of the French Church, or the preroga­tive Royal.

17. Generall Councels are above the Pope, and may depose him, and put another in his place, and take cognisance of appeals from the Pope.

18. All Bishops have their power immedi­ately from Christ, not from the Pope, and are equally successours of Saint Peter and the other Apostles, and Vicars of Christ.

19. Provisions, reservations, expectative graces, &c. have no place in France.

20. The Pope cannot exempt any Church, Monastery, or Ecclesiastical body from the Jurisdiction of their Ordinary, nor erect Bishopricks into Archbishopricks, nor unite them, nor divide them without the Kings Licence.

21. All those are not hereticks, excom­municated, or damned, who differ in some things from the doctrine of the Pope, who appeal from his decrees, and hinder the execution of the ordinances of him or his Legates.

These are part of the liberties of the Gal­licane Church. The ancient British Church needed no such particular priviledges, since they never knew any forreign Jurisdiction: [Page 201] The English British Church which succeeded them in time, in place, and partly in their members and holy orders, ought to have in­joyed the same freedom and exemption. But in the daies of the Saxon, Danish, and Norman Kings, the Popes did by degrees insinuate themselves into the mesnagery of Eccle­siastical affaires in England. Yet for many ages the English Church injoyed all these Gallicane priviledges, without any remark­able interruption from the Roman Court. As in truth they do of right by the Law of nature belong to all Sovereign Princes, in their own Dominions. Otherwise King­domes should be destitute of necessary re­medies for their own conservation. And in later ages, when the Popes having thrust in their heads, did strive to draw in their whole bodies after, the whole Kingdome opposed them, and made Lawes against their several grosse intrusions, as we have former­ly seen in this discourse: And never quitted these English (as well as Gallicane) liberties, untill the Reformation.

But perhaps we may find more loyalty and obedience to the Court of Rome in the Catholick King. The King of Spain asserts the liberties of his own Churches. Not at all. Whatsoever power King Henry or any of his Successours did ever assume to themselves in England as the Political Heads of the Church, the same and much more doth the Catholique King not onely pretend unto, but exercise and put in practice in his Kingdome of Sicily, [Page 202] both by himself & by his Delegates, whom he substitutes with the same authority, to judge and punish all Ecclesiastical crimes, to ex­communicate and absolve all Ecclesiastical persons, Edict. Car. 5. Decemb. 7. An. 1526. Lay-men, Monks, Clerks, Abbats, Bishops, Archbishops, yea, and even the Car­dinals themselves which inhabit in Sicily. He suffers no appeals to Rome, He admits no Nuncio's from Rome, [...]aron. to. 11. An. 1097. num. 29. edit. Mogunt. Atque demum resp [...]ct [...] Ecclesiasticae Iurisdictionis ne (que) ipsam Apostoli­cam sedem recognoscere & h [...]b [...]re superiorem, nisi in casu praeven [...]ionis. And to conclude, he acknowledgeth not any superiority of the S [...]e of Rome it s [...]lf, but onely in case of prevention.

What saith Baronius to this? He com­plains bitterly, that praetensa Apostolica autho­ritate contra Apostolicam ipsam sedem grande piaculum perpetratur, Ibid. [...] 28. &c. Vpon pretence of Apostolique authority a grievous offence is com­mitted against the Apostolick See, the power whereof is weakn [...]d in the Kingdome of Sicily, the authority thereof abrogated, the Iurisdiction wronged, the Ecclesiastical Lawes violated, and the rights of the Church dissipated. Ibid. num. 29. And a little after he declaimes yet higher, Quid in ad ista dixeris lector? What wilt thou say to this Reader? but that under the name of Mo­narchy besides that one Monarch which all the faithful have ever ackn [...]wledged as the onely visible Head in the Church, Another head it risen up, and brought into the Kingdome of Si­cily, for a Monster and a prodigy, &c. But for this liberty which he took, the King of Spain fairly and quietly without taking any [Page 203] notice of his Cardinalitian dignity, caused his books to be burned publickly.

It will be objected, That the King of Spain challengeth this power in Sicily, not by his Regal authority as a Sovereign Prince, but by the Bull of Vrbanus the se­cond, who constituted Roger Earl of Sicily and his heires his Legates à latere in that Kingdome, whereby all succeeding Princes do challenge to be Legati nati, with power to substitute others, and qualifie them with the same authority.

But first, if the Papacy be by Divine right, what power hath any particular Pope to transfer so great a part of his office and authority from his Successours for ever, unto a Lay-man and his heires, by way of inheri­tance? If every Pope should do as much for another Kingdom, as Vrbanus did for Sicily, the Court of Rome would quickly want imployment.

Secondly, if the Bull of Vrbanus the se­cond was so available to the succeeding Kings of Sicily, which yet is disputed whe­ther it be authentick or not, whether it be full, or defective, and mutilated, why should not the Bull of Nicholas the second his pre­decessour, granted to our Edward the Con­fessour and his Successours, be as advanta­gious to the succeeding Kings of England? why not much rather? seeing that they are thereby constituted or declared, not Le­gates, but Governours of the English [Page 420] Church, in the Popes place, or rather in Christs place, seeing that without all doubt Sicily was a part of the Popes ancient Pa­triarchate, but Britaigne was not; And lastly, seeing the situation of Sicily so much nearer to Rome, renders the Sicilians more capable of receiving Justice from thence, then the English.

Thirdly, the King of Spain when he plea­seth, and when he sees his own time, doth not onely pretend unto, but assume in his other Dominions that self-same power or essential right of Sovereignty, which I plead for in this treatise. It is not unknown to the world how indulgent a Father Vrban the eighth was sometimes to the King and Kingdom of France, and how passionately he affected the interest of that Crown. And by consequence that his eares were deaf to the requests and remonstrances of the King of Spain. The Catholique King resents this partiality very highly, and threatens the Pope if he persist, to provide a remedy for the grievances of his Subjects, by his own power. Accordingly to make good his word, he called a general Assembly of all the Estates of the Kingdome of Castile, to consider of the exorbitancies of the Court of Rome, in relation to his Majesties Sub­jects, and to consult of the proper remedies thereof. They did meet and draw up a memoriall consisting of ten Articles, con­taining the chiefest abuses and innovations, [Page 205] and extortions of the Court of Rome in the Kingdom of Castile. His Majestie sends it to the Pope by Friar Domingo Pimentell as his Ambassadour; The Pope returned a smart answer by Senior Maraldo his Secre­tary. The King replied as sharply. All which was afterwards printed by the special command of his Catholick Majesty.

The summe of their complaint was first concerning the Popes imposing of pensions upon dignities and other benefices Eccle­siastical, Memorial de sa mage­stad Cato­lica. even those which had cure of soules, in favour of strangers, in an excessive proportion, to the third part of the full value. Chap. 1, 2, 3. That although benefices were de­cayed in many places of Spain, two third parts of the true value; Yet the Court of Rome kept up the Pensions at the full height: That it was contrived so, that the Pensions did begin long before the benefi­ciaries entred upon their profits, insomuch as they were indebted sometimes two years pensions, before they themselves could taste of the fruits of their benefices; And then the charge of censures and other pro­ceedings in the Court of Rome fell so heavy upon them, that they could never recover themselves. And further, that whereas all trade is driven in current silver, onely the Court of Rome which neither toiles nor sweats, nor hazards any thing, will be paid onely in Duckates of Gold, not after the current rates, but according to the old [Page 206] value. That to seek for a remedy of these abuses at Rome, was such an insupportable charge, by reason of three instances and three sentences necessary to be obtained, that it was in vain to attempt any such thing. This they cried out upon as a most grievous yoak.

They complained likewise of the Popes granting of Coad jutorships with future succession, Chap. 4. whereby Ecclesiastical prefer­ments were made hereditary, persons of parts and worth were excluded from all hopes, and a large gap was opened to most grosse Simony.

They complained of the Popes admitting of resignations with reservation of the greatest part of the profits of the benefice; Chap. 5. insomuch, that he left not above an hundred Duckats yearly to the Incumbent out of a great benefice.

They complained most bitterly of the ex­tortions of the Roman Court, Chap. 6. in the case of dispensations. That whereas no dispen­sation ought to be granted without just cause; now there was no cause at all in­quired after in the Court of Rome, but onely the price. That a great price sup­plied the want of a good cause. That the gate was shut to no man that brought money. That their dispensations had no limits but the Popes will. That for a matri­monial dispensation under the second de­gree, they took of great persons 8000. or [Page 207] 12000. or 14000▪ Duckats.

They complained that the Pope being but the Churches Steward and dispenser, Chap. 7. did take upon him as Lord and Master, to dispose of all the rights of all Ecclesiastical persons. That he withheld from Bi­shops being the true owners, the sole dispo­sing of all Ecclesiastical preferments, for eight monthes in the year. That he ought not to provide for his own profit, and the necessities of his Court, with so great pre­judice to the right of Ordinaries, and Confusion of the Ecclesiastical order, whilest he suffers not Bishops to enjoy their own Patronages and Jurisdictions. Lib. 4. de Consid. cap. 7. They cite St. Bernard, where he tells Pope Eugenius, that the Roman Church (whereof he was made Go­vernour by God) was the Mother of other Churches, but not the Lady or Mistris. And that he himself was not the Lord or Master of other Bishops, but one of them.

They complained that the Pope did chal­lenge and usurpe to himself as his own, Chap. 8. at their deaths, all Clergymens estates, that were gained or raised out of the revenue of the Church. That a rich Clergyman could no sooner fall sick, but the Popes Collectors were gaping about him for his goods, And guards set presently about his house. That by this means Bishops have been deserted upon their deathbeds, And famished for want of meat to eat. That they have not had before they were dead a Cup left to [Page 208] drink in, nor so much as a Candlestick of all their goods. It is their own expression. That by this means Creditors were defrau­ded, processes in Law were multiplied, and great estates wasted to nothing.

They complained that the Popes did usurp as their own all the revenues of Bi­shopricks during their vacancies, Chap. 9. sometimes for divers years together, all which time the Churches were unrepaired, the poor unre­lieved, not so much as one almes given; And the wealth of Spain exported into a forreign Land, which was richer then it self. They wish the Pope to take it as an argument of their respect to the See of Rome, that they do not go about forthwith to reform these abuses by their own auth [...]ity, in imitation of other Pro­vinces. So it was not the unwarrantable­nesse of the act in it self, but meerly their respect that did withhold them.

They complained of the great inconve­niences and abuses in the exercise of the Nuncio's office. Chap. 10. That it is reckoned as a curse in holy Scripture to be governed by persons of a different language. That for ten Crowns a man might purchase any thing of them: That the fees of their office were so great, that they alone were a sufficient punishment for a grievous crime: They added, that self-interest was the root of all these evils. That such abuses as these gave occasion to all the Reformations and Schismes of the Church. They added, That these things [Page 209] did much trouble the mind of his Catho­lique Majestie; And ought to be seriously pondered by all Sovereign Princes, qui intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae Culmina tenent; ut per eandem potestatem disciplinam Ecclesiasti­cam muniant. Behold our Political Supre­macy. They proceeded, that often the hea­venly Kingdome is advantaged by the earthly. That Church-men acting against faith and right discipline, may be reformed by the rigour of Princes. Let the Princes of this world know (say they) that they owe an account to God of the Church, which they have received from him into their protection. For whether peace and right Ecclesiastical discipline be increased or de­cayed by Christian Princes, God will require an account from them, who hath trusted his Church unto their power. They tell his Holinesse it was a work worthy of him to turn all such Courtiers out of his Court, who did much hurt by their persons, and no good by their examples. Adding this distich;

And for remedy of these abuses, they pro­posed, Ibidem Chap. 10. that the Popes Nuncio's should not meddle with the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction, but be meerly in the nature of Ambassadours; That all Ecclesiastical causes should be determined at home, according to the Canons: That the Pope should de­legate [Page 210] the dispensation of matters of grace to some [...]it Commissioners within the King­dome. That Ecclesiastical Courts or Rota's should be [...]rected within the Realm, wherein all causes should be finally determined with­out recourse to Rome, except in such cases as are allowed by the ancient Canons of the Church.

Lastly, Ibidem. they represented that his Ma­jestie was justly pressed by the continual clamours, and reiterated instances of his Subjects, to whose assistence and protection he was obliged to contribute whatsoever he was able, as their Natural Lord and King, to procure their weal with all his might, by all just means, according to the dictates of natural reason. And to remedy the grie­vances which they [...]uffered in their persons and in their goods, by occasion of such like abuses, not practised in other Kingdomes. Especially this proposit [...]on being so con­formable to the Apostolical precepts, and to the sacred Canons of Councels.

They tell the Pope, that their first addresse is to him, to whom as universal Pastour the Reformation thereof doth most properly belong, that there might be no need to proceed to other remedies prescribed by the Doctours of the Church. And in the margent they cite more then twenty several Authours, to shew what the Magistrate might do, in case the Pope should refuse or neglect to reform these abuses▪ So you see they confessed [Page 211] plainly, that there were other lawful reme­dies. And intimated sufficiently that they must proceed to the use of them, in case the Pope refused or neglected to do his duty. That was for the Sovereign Prince with his Bishops and Estates to ease his Subjects, and reform the abuses of the Roman Court within his own Dominions. And this by direction of the Law of nature. Upon our former ground, that no Kingdom is desti­tute of necessary remedies for its own pre­servation. But they chose rather to tell the Pope this unwelcome Message in the names and words of a whole cloud of Roman Catholick Doctours, then in their own.

In fine, the Pope continued obstinate: And the King proceeded from words to deeds; And by his Sovereign power stopped all proceedings in the Nuncio's Court. And for the space of eight weeks did take away all intercourse and correspondence with Rome, (This was the first act of Henry the eighth, which Sanders calls the beginning of the Schisme,) untill the Pope being taught by the costly experience of his predecessours, fearing justly what the consequents of these things might be in a little time, was con­ [...]ented to bow, and condescend to the Kings desires.

To shew yet further, that the Kings of Spain when they judge it expedient, do make themselves no strangers to Ecclesiasticall [Page 212] affaires, we read that Charles the fifth renewed an edict of his predecessours at Madril, That Bulls and Missives sent from Rome should be visited, An. 1543. Pad. Paolo A [...]olog. pag. 405. to see that they contain­ed nothing in them prejudicial to the [...] or Church of Spain; which was strictly obser­ved within the Spanish Dominions.

I might adde upon the credit of the Por­tugueses, [...]usitan [...]ae gemitus▪ pag. 39. how Alexander Castracan was disgraced and expelled out of Spain, for publishing the Popes Bulls, and that the Papal censures were declared void. And how the Popes Delegates or Apostolical Judges have been banished out of that Kingdom, pag. 41. for maintaining the priviledges of the Roman Court.

And when the King of Spain objected to the Pope the Pensions which he and his Court received yearly out of Spain, from Ecclesiastical benefices and dignities; The Popes Secretary replied, that all the Papal Pensions put together, did scarcely amount to so much as one onely pension imposed by the King upon the Archbishoprick of Si­ville. Neither did the King deny the thing, but justifie it▪ as done in favour of an In­fante of Castile: [...] And did further acknow­ledge that it was not unusual for the Kings of Spain to impose pensions upon Eccle­siastical preferments, to the fourth part of the value, except in the Kingdom of Gali­ [...]a: This was more then ever any King of [Page 213] England attempted, either before or after the reformation.

Before we leave the Dominions of this great Prince, let us cast our eyes a little upon Brabant and Flanders; who hath not heard of a Book composed by Iansenius Bishop of Ypres, called Augustinus; And of those great animosities and contentions that have risen about it in most Roman Ca­tholick Countreys? I meddle not with the merit of the cause, whether Iansenius fol­lowed Saint Austine, or Saint Austine his Ancients, or whether he be reconciliable to himself in this question. I do willingly omit all circumstances, but onely those which conduce to my present purpose. So it was that Vrbane the eighth by his Bull censured the said Book, as maintaining divers temerarious and dangerous positi­ons, under the name of St. Austine, for­bidding all Catholicks to print it, sell it, or keep it for the future. This Bull was sent to the Archbishop of Mechline, and the Bishop of Gant to see it published and obey­ed in their Provinces. But they both refu­sed; And for refusing were cited to appear at Rome: And not appearing by them­selves or their Proctours, were suspended and interdicted by the Pope, and the copy of the sentence affixed to the door of the great Church in Brussels. Although in truth they durst not publish the sentence of condemnation without the Kings Licence; [Page 214] And were expresly forbidden by the Coun­cel of Brabant to appear at Rome under great penalties, as appeareth manifestly by the Proclamation or Placa [...]t of the Councel themselves dated at Brussels, May 1 [...]. 1653.

Wherein they do further declare, that it was Kennelick ende no [...]oix, Imp [...] ess. Iruxellis per Anth. V [...]lpium ty­p [...]graph. Re [...]gium 1653. &c. Well know [...] and notoriously true that the Subjects of those Provinces, of what state or condition soever, could not be cited nor convented out of the land, neither in person nor by their proctour, [selveroock niet voor het hoff van Roomen] no not by the Court of Rome it self. And fur­ther that the provisions, spiritual censures, ex­communications, suspensions, and interdictions of that Court, might not be published or put in execution without the Kings approba [...]io [...], after the Councels deliberation. And yet further, they do ordain that the said defamatory wri­ting (So they call the Copy of the Popes sentence) should be torn in pieces in the great Hall of the Court at Brussels by the door-keeper, condemning and abolishing the memory thereof for ever. Thus all Christendom do joyn unanimously in this truth, that not the Court of Rome, bu [...] their own Sovereigns in their Councels are the last Judges of their National liberties and priviledges.

I passe from Spain to Portugal, where the King and Kingdom either are at this present time or very lately, The King of Portugal doth the same. were very much unsatisfied with the Pope: And all [Page 215] about their ancient customes and essential rights of the Crown. As the nomination of their own Bishops, without which con­dition they tell the Pope plainly, that they neither can nor ought to receive them. L [...]sitan [...]ae Gemitus, pag. 30. Pag. 31. That if others then the Sovereign Prince have the naming of them▪ then suspected persons may be intruded, and the Realm can have no se­curity. That it is the opinion of all good men, and the judgement of most learned men, Pag. 32. that herein the Pope doth most grie­vously derogate from the right of the Crown. That it is done in favour of the King of Castile, lest he should either revolt from his obedience to the Pope, or make war against him. And that if provision be made contrary to justice, Pag. 34. for the private interests of the Roman Court, Christs right is betrayed. They advise the Pope to let the world know that he hath care of souls, Pag. 37. and leaves temporal things to Princes. That if he persist to change the custome of the Church to the prejudice of Portugal, Portugal may and ought to pre­serve its right; And that if he love Castile more then Portugal, Pag. 38. Portugal is not obliged to obey him more then Castile.

There are other differences likewise, as namely about the imprisoning of some Prelates for Treason, to which they make this plea, Pag. 40. that the Law doth warrant it. That Ecclesiastical immunities are not opposite to na­tural defence. That it is he that hurts his Countrey, who hurts his own immunity.

[Page 216]A third difference was about the Kings intermedling in the controversies of religi­ous persons. To which they answer, that the protection of the Prince is not a violation, but a defence of the rights of the Church. That it is the duty of Catholick Princes to see regular discipline be observed. Pag. 42. The fourth difference is about taxes imposed upon Ecclesiastical persons, and the taking up the revenues of Bishopricks in the vacancy, to which they give this satisfaction, that all orders of men are obliged in justice to contribute to the common defence of the Kingdom and their own necessary protection; And that the revenues of the vacant Bishopricks could not be better depo­sited and conserved, then when they are imploy­ed by the Prince for the publick benefit, cum onere restituendi.

In summe, they wish the Pope over and over again to consider seriously the danger of these courses, now when Heresie shewes it self with such confidence throughout Eu­rope. P. 23. That the minds of men are inclined to suspected opinions. That St. Peters ship which hath often been in danger in a Calme Sea, P. 17. ought not to be opposed to the violent course of just complainers, who think themselves for­saken. That the Chu [...]ch of Rome hath lost many kingdoms, which have withdrawn their obedience and reverential respect from it, P. 43. for much lesser reasons. That they had learned with grief by their last repulse, that their submissions and iterated supplications had [Page 217] prejudiced their right. That the Kings Am­bassadour, the Clergies messenger, the Agent from the three orders of the Kingdom had found nothing at Rome from two Popes but neglects, P. 44. affronts, and repulses. And lastly, for a fare­well, that Portugal and all the Provinces that belong unto it in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, is more then one single sheep. Which is as much as if they should tell him in plain down right terms, P. 45. that if he lose it by his own fault, he loseth one of the fair­est flowers in his Garland. What the issue of this will be, God onely knowes, and time must discover.

I will conclude this point with the an­swer of the University of Lisbone to certain questions or demands, Imprss. Olissiponae, an. 1649. moved unto them by the States or Orders of Portugal. The first question was, whether in case there were no recourse to the Pope, the King of Portugal might permit the consecration of Bishops without the Pope in his Kingdom? To which their answer was affirmative, that he might do it, because Episcopacy was of divine right, but the reservation of the Popes approbation was of humane right, which doth not bind in extreme nor in very great necessi­ty.

The second question, whether there was extreme necessity of consecrating new Bi­shops in Portugal? Their answer was affir­mative, that there was, because there was but one Bishop left in Portugal, and six and [Page 218] twenty wanting in the rest of the Kings dominions.

The third question was, whether Portugal had then recourse to the Pope for his ap­probation? The answer was Negative, that they had not; first, because the Castilians had attempted to slay their Ambassadour [...] before the eyes of Vrban the 8 ^th. and Inno­cent the 10 ^th. So there was no safe re­course. And secondly, because their Am­bassadour could uot prevail with the Pope in nine years, by all their solicitations: So there was no hope to obtain.

The fourth question was, whether the permission of this were scandalous? The answer was Negative, that it was not; first, because it was a greater scandal to want Bishops. Secondly, because the King had used all due means to obtain the Popes approbation. Thirdly, because it was done out of extreme necessity.

The fifth and last question was, how Bi­shops were to be provided? They answered, that it was to be done according to Law, by the election of the respective Chapters, and by the presentation of the King, as it was of old in Spain and Portugal, and was still observed in Germany and elsewhere.

From Spain and Portugal, it is now high time to passe over into Italy: where we meet with the Republick of Venice, obliged in some sort to the Papacy for that honour, and grandeur, and profit, and advantage [Page 219] which the Italian Nation doth reape from it. Yet have not they wanted their discon­tents, and differences, and disputes with the Court of Rome.

The Republick of Venice had made seve­ral Lawes; Maii 23. An. 1602. Ian. 10. An. 1603. Martii. 26. An. 1605. As first, that no Ecclesiastical person should make any claime or pretence to any bona Emphyteutica, (as the Lawyers call them) that is, waste lands that had been planted and improved by the great Charge and industry and good Culture of the Fee-farmers, [...]ulla Pauli quinti. dat Rom. Ap. 17. 1606. which were possessed by the Laity. Secondly, that no person what­soever within their dominions should found any Church, Venetian Lawes. Monastery, Hospital, or other religious house, without the speci­al licence of the State, upon pain of impri­sonmeut, and banishment, and confiscation of the soile and buildings. Thirdly, that none of their subjects should alienate any Lands to the Church, or in favour of any Ecclesiastical persons secular or Regular, without the special Licence of the Senate: Upon pain that the Lands so alienated should be sold, and the money divided between the Common-Wealth, the Ma­gistrate executing the Law, and the party prosecuting the processe. Fourthly, the Duke and the Senate had imprisoned an Abbat and a Canon, for certain crimes whereof they stood convicted.

Paul the fifth resented these things very highly, and commanded the Duke and [Page 220] Senate of Venice to abrogate these Lawes, Bulla ead [...]m. The Popes Bull. so prejudicial to the authority of the Pope, to the rights of holy Church, and to the priviledges of Ecclesiastical persons: And to set their prisoners forthwith at liberty: Or otherwise in case of disobedience, he ex­communicated the Duke and Senate, and all their partakers; And subjected the City of Venice and all the Dominions thereunto be­longing to an interdict. And moreover, declared all the Lands and goods which either the City of Venice, or any of the per­sons excommunicated did hold of the Church, to be forfeited, And lastly, com­manded all Ecclesiastical persons high and low, upon their obedience, to publish that Bull, and to forbear to celebrate all divine offices according to the Interdict, upon pains contained therein, as also of suspen­sion, sequestration, deprivation, and inca­pacity to hold any Ecclesiastical prefer­ments for the future.

But what did the Venetians whilest Paul the fifth thundered against them in this manner? Sleighted by the Venetians. They maintained their Lawes, they detained their prisoners; They pro­tested publickly before God and the world, against the Popes Bull, Literae Leon­ardi Don. Ducis Venet. datae Maii [...]. 1606. as unjust and void, made withont reason, against the Scriptures, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and the Canons of the Church, to the high pre­judice of the secular power, with grievous and universal scandal. They commanded [Page 221] all the Clergy within their Dominions to celebrate divine offices duly, notwithstand­ing the Popes interdict. And at the same time they published and licensed sundry other writings, tending to the lessening of the Papal greatnesse, and Jurisdiction of the Roman Court. Sundry of which books were condemned by the Inquisition, as con­taining in them many [...]ings temerarious, Pad. Paol [...] Historia partic. l. 4. p. 141. ca­lumnious, scandalous, seditious, schismaticall, heretical, and the reading and keeping of them was prohibited under pain of excom­munication.

During this contestation the Duke of Venice died; And the Pope prohibited the Venetians to proceed to the election of a new Duke. Idem. l. 1. p. 24. The Senate, notwithstanding the Popes Injunction or Inhibition, proceed to the election; The people are unanimous, and resolute to defend their just liberties. The Clergy celebrate divine Offices duly, notwithstanding the Popes interdict: Only one order with some few others adhered to the Pope, and for their labour were banish­ed out of the Venetian City and Territories. The Pope called home his Legate from Ve­nice: The Venetians revoked their Ambas­sadours ordinary and extraordinary from Rome. The Pope incited the King of Spain to make war against the Republick, to re­duce them to the obedience of the Church. And the Venetians being aided by their Ro­man [Page 222] Catholick allies, armed themselves for their own defence.

It is not unworthy of our observation, Venetian doctrines. what was the doctrine of the Venetian Prea­chers and Writers in those daies, as it is summed up by an eye-witnesse, Pad. Paol Hist. par [...]. l. 4. p. 145. and a great Actour in those affaires; That God had con­stituted two Governments in the world, the one spiritual, the other temporal, either of them Sovereign in their kind, and independent the one upon the other. That the care of the spiritual was committed to the Apostles and their Succes­sours. Not to Saint Peter as a single Apo­stle, and his Successours alone, either at Antioch, or at Rome, as if all the rest were but Delegates for term of life, wherein they agreed justly with us, that as each particular Bishop is the respective Head of his proper Church; So Episcopacy, or Saint Cyprian's unus Episcopatus the conjoynt body of Bi­shops is the Ecclesiastical head of the mili­tant Church. That the care of the temporal Government is committed to Sovereign Princes. That these two cannot intrude the one into the office of the other. That the Pope hath no power to a [...]null the Lawes of Princes in temporall things, nor to deprive them of their Estates, nor to free their Subjects from their allegiance: That the attempt to depose Kings was but 520 years old, contrary to Scriptures, contrary to the examples of Christ and of the Saints: That to teach, that in case of controversie between the [Page 223] Pope and a Prince, it is lawful to persecute him by treachery or force; Or that his rebellious Subjects may purchase by it remission of sins, is a seditious and sacrilegious doctrine. That the exemption of Ecclesiastical persons and their goods from the secular power is not from the Law of God, but from the piety of Princes, sometimes more, sometimes lesse, according to the exigence of affair [...]s. That Papal exemptions of the Cler­gy are in some places not received at all, in other places but received in part; And that they have no efficacy or validity further then they are re­ceived. That notwithstanding any exemption, Sovereigns have power over their persons and goods, whensoever the necessity of the Common-wealth requires it. That if any exemption whatsoever be abused to the disturbance of the publick tranquillity, the Prince is obliged to pro­vi [...]e remedy for it. That the Pope ought not to hold himself infallible, nor promise himself such divine assistance: That the authority to bind and loose is to be understood clave non er­rante. That when the Pope hath censured or excommunicated a Prince, the Doctours may lawfully examine whether his key have erred or not: And when the Prince is certified that the Censure against him or his Subjects is inva­lid, he may and ought for the preservation of publick peace to hinder the execution thereof, pre­serving his Rel [...]gion and convenient reverence to the Church. That the excommunication of a multitude, or a Prince that commands much people, is pernicious and sacrilegious. That the [Page 224] new name of blind obedience lately invented was unknown to the ancient Church, and to all good Theologians, destroyes the essence of virtue, which is to work by certain knowledge and election, exposeth to danger of offending God, excuseth not the errours of a spiritual Prince, and was apt to raise sedition, as the experience of the last fourty years had manifested. What conclusion would have followed from these premisses, if they had been thoroughly pur­sued, it were no difficult matter to deter­mine.

It may perhaps be objected, That the Venetian State had these priviledges granted to them by the Popes, and Court of Rome. And it is thus far true, That they had five Bulls, Nicomaco Philal. aver­timent v [...]ri pag. 22. Two of Sixtus the fourth, one of In­nocent the eighth, one of Alexander the sixth, and the last of Paul the third. But it is as true, that none of these Bulls con­cerned any of the matters in debate, but only the punishment of delinquent Clergy­men. It hath been an old subtlety of the Popes, that when the Emperours or Coun­cels had granted any Ecclesiastical privi­ledge or honour to any person or Society, which it was not in their power to crosse; Yet straightway their Bulls did flie abroad, either of concession, or confirmation, or Delegation, to make the world believe that nothing could be done without them.

But how or by what right did the Vene­tians claim these priviledges? By virtue of [Page 225] any Papal Bulls? No such thing. But by the Law of nature as an essential right of Sovereignty, and by a most ancient custome of 1200 years, that is, a thousand years be­fore the first Bull was dated, Raccolta degli Sc [...]it [...]ti, &c. pag. 9. as appeareth by a letter of the Senate of Venice to the Venetian Commons their Subjects.

Secondly, it may be urged further, that the Venetians did not make a total and per­petual separation from Rome. No more did England, if by Rome we understand the Church of Rome. Can. 30. First not total, but onely in particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first [...]ounders. Which are the very words of our Canon. Secondly, not per­petual, but onely temporary, untill their errours be amended, and abuses reformed.

But if by Rome be understood the Roman Court, the case of Ve [...]ice and England is much different: They acknowledge them­selves to be justly subject to the Roman Patriarch; we do altogether deny his Ju­risdiction over us; The vicinity of Venice renders them capable of receiving Justice from Rome, which the distance of England being so far divided by Seas and Mountains doth hinder us of. Their interest invited them to a conjunction with Rome: Ours is against it. But yet they take care for their own security and indemp [...]ity, that the Papacy which they submitted unto should [Page 226] be toothlesse, not able to bite them or in­jure them. If that Papacy which they sought to have obtruded upon us, had been such an one, in probability they had not so quickly been turned out of doores.

Lastly, it may be objected, that the points in difference between Rome and us be many more, then those which were in diffe­rence between Rome and Venice. This indeed is most true; But not much material. More or lesse do not vary the kind or nature of any thing. Whether their liberties or ours be of greater or lesser extent, is impertinent to our question. If Venice ought to enjoy their ancient liberties and customes, then so ought England also. If the Venetians ought to be the last Judges of their own pretensions, what their ancient customes and liberties were, then so ought we to be likewise. Not the Pope and his conclave of Cardinals, which if Venice would not endure, we have much l [...]sse reason to endure it. What Canons have been received with us, and how far, and where our shoe did wring us, none knew so well as our selves.

The chiefest difference between our case and that of Venice, seems to me to be this, That we were put to an a [...]ter-game, so were not they: They preserved their rights and priviledges then in question in­tire from the usurpations of the Roman Court; we were necessitated in part to [Page 227] retrive and vindicate ours. Theirs was pro­perly a Conservation; Ours a Reformation. They might thank the unanimity of their Subjects, the loyalty of their Clergy, and their nearer acquaintance with Rome for their advantage, we might blame the Barons Wars, and the contentions between the houses of York and Lancaster, and a kind of superstitious veneration of that See, occasioned by our distance and want of ex­perimental knowledge, for our disadvant­age.

But to come to the Catastrophe of this businesse. The con­clusion of the Vene­tian trou­bles. Both sides grew weary of the difference. Christian Princes mediated a Peace, especially the most Christian King. The Venetians were contented to shake hands and be friends with the Court of Rome; But without any reparation, or submission, or confession, or so much as a request to be made on their parts. They refused to abrogate any one of the Lawes complained of. They refused (though the Pope did presse it most instantly, and the Cardinal Ioieuse did assure them that it would be more acceptable to his Holinesse then the conquest of a Kingdome,) to re­admit the banished persons into their City. They refused to take an absolution from Rome; Yea, they were so far from it, that when the Ambassadour intreated that the Duke might receive a benediction from him publickly in the Church, both the Duke [Page 228] and the Senate did resolutely oppose it, be­cause it had some appearance of an absolu­tion.

A man would have thought that this might have sufficed to have caught the Popes more wit, then to have hazarded their repu­tation again, so near home, where they are so well known; But it did not. They ad­ventured after this to make their spiritual weapons subservient to their temporal ends, by excommunicating and interdicting the Duke of Parma and his Subjects, with little better successe.

I expect that it should be alledged, That all the Projects of France for a new Patriar­chate, and the memorials of Castile, and the bleatings of Portugal, &c. were but perso­nated shewes, to terrifie Popes into their duties; And in part I do believe it to be true. But withal they must yeeld thus much unto me, that it is for children to be terri­fied with grimaces, or painted vizards, which signifie nothing [...] To work upon wise men there must be probable and just grounds, that such things as are pretended may be, and will be effected. We have said enough to shew that all Christian Nations do chal­lenge this right to themselves, to be the last Judges of their own liberties and priviled­ges.

CHAP. VIII.
That the Pope and the Court of Rome are most guilty of the Schisme.

I Am come now to my sixth and last proposition, which brings the Schisme home to their own doores. Wherein I endeavour to demonstrate that the Church of Rome, The Church but principally the Court of Rome is 4. waies guilty of schisme. or rather the Pope and the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schisme, and almost all other Schisms in the Church. First, by seeking to usurpe an higher place and power in the body Ec­clesiastical, then of right is due unto them. Secondly, by separating, both by their do­ctrines and censures, three parts of the Christian world from their Communion, and as much as in them lies from the com­munion of Christ. Thirdly, by rebelling against general Councels. Lastly, by break­ing or taking away all the lines of Aposto­lical Succession except their own.

First, they make the Church of Rome to be not onely the sister of all other Patriar­chal Churches, and the Mother of many Churches, but to be the Lady and Mistris of all Churches; To be not onely a prime stone in the building, but the very founda­tion; to be not onely a respective founda­tion, in relation to this or that time and place, (as all the Apostles and all Apostoli­cal [Page 230] Churches were, and all good Pastours and all orthodox Churches are,) but to be an absolute foundation for all persons, in all places, at all times, which is proper to Christ alone: Other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid, even Iesus Christ. They hold it not enough for the Roman Church to be a top- [...]ranch, unlesse it may be the root of Christian Religion, or at least of all that Jurisdiction which Christ left as a Le­gacy to his Church. In all which claime by the Church of Rome, they understand not the essential Church, nor yet the re­presentative Church, a Roman Synod, but the virtual Church which is invested with Ecclesiastical power, that is, the Pope with his Cardinals and Ministers. When any member how eminent soever scorns its pro­per place in the body, whether Natural, or Political, or Ecclesiastical, and seekes to usurpe the Office of the head; it must of necessi [...]y produce a disorder, and distur­ [...]ance, and confusion, and schisme of the respective members. This is one degree of schismat [...]cal pravity.

But in the second place, we presse the crime of schisme more home against the Court of Rome, then against the Church of Rome. It is the Court of Rome which partly by obtruding new Creeds, and new Articles of faith, And especially this do­ctrine, That it is necessary for every Chri­stian under pain of damnation to be subject [Page 231] to the Bishop of Rome, as the vicar of Christ, by divine Ordination upon earth, (that is in effect, to be subject to them­selves who are his Councel and Officers,) yea, even those who by reason of their re­motenesse never heard of the name of Rome, without which it will profit them nothing to have holden the Catholick faith intirely. And partly by their tyrani­nical and uncharitable censures have sepe­rated all the Asia [...]ick, African, Grecian, Russian, and Protestant Churches from their communion, not onely negatively in the way of Christian discretion, by withdraw­ing of themselves for fear of infection; But privatively and authoritatively by way of Jurisdiction, excluding them (so much as in them lieth) from the Communion of Christ; Though those Churches so chased away by them contain three times more Christian souls then the Church of Rome it self, with all its dependents and adherents; many of which do suffer more pressures for the testimony of Christ, then the Roma­nists do gain advantages, and are ready to shed the last drop of their blood for the least known particle of saving truth. Onely because they will not strike topsaile to the Popes crosse-keys, nor buy indul­gences and such like trinkets at Rome. It is not passion, but action that makes a schis­matick, to desert the communion of Christians voluntarily, not to be thrust away [Page 232] from it unwillingly. For divers years in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths reign, there was no Recusant known in England; But even they who were most addicted to Roman opinions, yet frequented our Chur­ches and publick assemblies, and did joyn with us in the use of the same prayers and divine offices, without any scruple, untill they were prohibited by a Papal Bull; meerly for the interest of the Roman Court. This was the true beginning of the schisme be­tween us and them. I never yet heard any of that party charge our Leiturgy with any errour, except of omission, that it wanted something which they would have inserted; I wish theirs as free from exception, to trie whether we would shunne their communion in the publick service of God. Charity would rather chuse to want something that was lawful, then willingly to give occasion of offence.

But to lay the axe to the root of schisme in the third place; the Papacy it self, (qu [...] talis,) as it is now maintained by many, with superiority above general Councels, and a Sovereign power paramount to con­firme or reject their sanctions, is the cause either procreant, or conservant, or both, of all or the most part of the schismes in Christendom. To rebell against the Ca­tholick Church and its representative a ge­neral Councel, which is the last visible Judge of controversies, and the supreme Ecclesi­astical [Page 233] Court, either is grosse schisme, or there is no such thing as Schismatical pra­vity in the world.

I say, the Bishops of Rome have exempt­ed themselves and their Court from the Ju­risdiction of an Oecumenical Councel, and made themselves Sovereign Monarches, and universal Bishops, Gregor. in totius Ecclesiae injuriam & discissionem, to the wrong of the Church, and renting it in peeces, Hist. Con. Trid l. 7. an. 1563. making themselves to be not onely fathers, but Masters of all Christians. It is the Popes own expression in his letter to his Legate.

Contrary to their former professions of obedience to the Ecclesiastical constitu­tions of Sovereign Princes and Synods; C. de Capi­tulis dist. 10. con­trary to their own Lawes which allow ap­peales from them so often as they transgress the Canons, C. Nos si incompeten­ter. and subject them to the judg­ment of the Church, 2 Qu 7. Gloss. [...]. si Papa dist. 4 [...]. & C. N [...]mo. 9. qu. 3. not onely in case of heresie, which the most of themselves do acknowledge, and Schisme and Simony, which many of them do not deny: But also of Scandal; contrary to so many appella­tions from them by Christian Princes, Pre­lates, and Universities; contrary to the judgement of almost all the Cisalpine Prelats, Hist. Conc. Trid. l. 7. 10. Spanish, French, Dutch, assembled at Trent; contrary to the decrees of so many Coun­cels both general and provincial, which have limited their Jurisdiction, set down the true reason of their greatnesse, rescinded their sentences, forbidden appeales to them, [Page 234] condemned their pragmatical intrusion of themselves into the affairs of other Chur­ches, as being contrary to the decrees of the Fathers which have judged them and condemned them of heresie, schisme, Simony, and other misdemeanours, which have deposed them by two or three at [...] time, whereof one was undoubtedly the true Pope. These things are so obvious in the history of the Church, that it were va­nity and lost labour to prove them. But especially contrary to the Councel of Con­stance and Basile, which have decreed ex­presly, Conc. Const. Sess. 4. that the Pope is subject to a General Councel as well in matter of faith, as of man­ners; So as he may not onely be corrected; but if he be incorrigible, [...]e deposed. This is deter­mined in the Councel of Constance, and confirmed in the Councel of Basil, Con. Basil. Sess. 2. with this addition, that whosoever opposeth this truth pertinaciously, is to be reputed an heretick.

This decree of the Councel wounds deep, because it is so evident and clear in the point, and because the decrees thereof were confirmed by Martine the fifth. But the Romanists have found out a salve for it, That Pope Martine confirmed onely those de­crees which were conciliarly made, that is, with the influence and concurrence of the Pope; As the condemnation of Wickliff and Hus: But not those decrees which were not con­ciliarly made, that is, which wanted the influence of the Pope; As the decree of the [Page 235] Superiority of the Councel above the Pope. Which ought to be understood (say they) onely of dubious Popes.

For clearing of which doubt, I propose several considerations:

First, The Popes confirma­tion of Councels of no va­lue. that it is not material whether the decree were confirmed by the Pope or not. There are two sorts of confirmation, Approbative, and Anthoritative; Approba­tive confirmation is by way of testimony, or suffrage, or reception. And so an inferiour may confirm the acts of his Superiour. As it is said, that the Saints shall judge the world, that is, by their doctrine, by their example, and by their approbative suffrage, Iust ar [...] thou, O Lord, and right are thy judgments. Authoritative confirmation implies either a sole Legislative power, or at least a nega­tive voice: Whereas it is as clear as the light, that the Popes anciently never had either the one or the other in the Ca­tholick Church. We meet with no con­firmations of General Councels of old, but onely by the Emperours, whereby Eccle­siastical Sanctions became civil Lawes, and obliged all the Subjects of the Empire under a civil pain. Wherefore it is no matter whether the Pope confirmed the decree or not, whether it was confirmed or uncon­firmed; it lets us see what was the Catho­lique tradition, and the sense of the Chri­stian world in those daies; And we abide in it.

[Page 236] Secondly, The decree of the Councels superiority above the Pope mo [...]t conciliarly made. I reply, that this decree was most conciliarly made, and consequently confirmed, made after due examination and discussion, without any under-hand packing or labouring for voices, made in the publick Session, not privately before the Deputies of the Nations. For clearing whereof take this Dilemma. Either this decree and the subsequent Acts done by vertue and in exe­cution thereof, were conciliarly made and confirmed, and consequently valid in the judgment of the Romanists themselves, or unconciliarly made, and consequently ac­cording to their rules not confirmed, but invalid. If they grant, that this decree was conciliarly made and confirmed, then they grant the question. If they say it was not conciliarly made nor confirmed, then Mar­tine the fifth was no true Pope, but an in­truder and an usurper, and consequently his confirmation was of no value; for in pursuance of this very decree, and by virtue of that doctrine therein delivered, the other Popes were deposed, and he was created Pope.

But to clear that passage from all ambi­guity. There were in the Councel of Constance the Deputies of the Nations as a selected Committee to examine matters, and prosecute them, and prepare them for the Councel. What was done apart by these Deputies, by this Committee, was not con­ciliarly done. But what was done in the [Page 237] publick Session of the Councel, upon their report, that was conciliarly done. Now so it was, that one Falkemberch had pub­lished a dangerous and seditious book, which had been complained of to the Deputies of the Nations, and condemned by them: But the conjoynt body of the Councel in their publick Session had not condemned it con­ciliarly. Yet after the Councel was ended, and after the Cardinal had given the Fathers their Conge, or leave to depart, and dis­missed them with Domini ite in pace, Fathers depart in peace; And the Fathers had answe­red, Amen. When there was nothing left to do, but to hear a Sermon and be gone, The Ambassadours of Polonia and Lituania, very unseasonably pressed the Pope to con­demn that book, alledging, that it had been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations. To which the Pope answered, That he con­firmed onely those Acts of the Councel which were conciliarly made. That is to say, Not the Acts of the Deputies of the Nations apart, but the publick Acts of the whole Session. This is the genuine sense of that passage which bears its own evidence along with it, to every one that doth not wilfully shut his eyes. This was an accidental emer­gent, after the Synod was ended, and not the solemn purposed confirmation.

And concerning that glosse, that the decree is to be understood onely of dubious [Page 238] Popes, or Popes whose title is litigious. As it contradicts the text it self, which includes all dignitaries whosoever, of whatsoever title peaceable or litigious, Popes or others; So it is sufficiently confuted by the very exe­cution of the decree. An inferiour may declare the lawful right of his Superiour, and where there are divers pretenders, establish the possession in him that hath the best title. But to make right to be no right, to turn all pretenders right or wrong out of possession, onely by the last Law of Salus Populi, &c. for the tranquillity of the people, This is a prerogative of Sovereign Princes, and a badge of Legislative authority. This was the very case of the Councel of Con­stance; They turned out all pretenders to the Papacy, the right Pope and the Anti­popes all together. Some of them indeed by perswasion, but such perswasion as might not be resisted; And one whose title seemed clearest, which rendered their perswasions as unto him ineffectual, by plain power. For so the Councel with the consent and concurrence of Christian Princes, did find it expedient for Christendome.

Lastly, though the Popes do not abolish the order of Bishops, or Episcopacy in the abstract, yet they limit the power of Bishop [...] in the concrete at their pleasure, by exempti­ons and reservations, holding themselves to be the Bishops of every particular See in the [Page 239] world, during the vacancy of it; And making all Episcopal Jurisdiction to flow from them, and to be founded in the Popes Lawes; Because it was but delegated to the rest of the Apostles for term of life; But resided soly in Saint Peter as an Ordinary, to descend from him to his Successours Bishops of Rome; And to be imparted by them to other Bishops as their Vicars or Coadju­tours, assumed by them into some part of their charge. By this account the Pope must be the universal or onely Bishop of the world. The keyes must be his gift, not Christs: And all the Apostles except Saint Peter, must want their Successours in Episco­pal Jurisdiction. What is this but to tram­ple upon Episcopacy, and to make them equivocal Bishops, to dissolve the primitive bonds of brotherly unity, to overthrow the discipline instituted by Christ, and to take away the line of Apostolical Succession?

The name of Oecumenical or universal Bishop is taken in three senses, one without controversie lawful, one controverted whe­ther lawfull or unlawfull; And one un­doubtedly unlawful and Schismatical. In the first sense an universal Bishop signifies no more then an eminent Bishop of the universal Church, implying an universality of care and vigilance, but not of Jurisdicti­on. And in this sense all the five Protopa­triarchs used more Emphatically to be cal­ed universal Bishops. Either by reason [Page 240] of their reputation and influence upon the universal Church or their presidence in general Councels.

In another sense, an universal Bishop signifies such a Bishop who besides an uni­versal care, doth also challenge an universal Jurisdiction. This was that title which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople affected, omnibus praeesse, Greg. [...]p. l. 4. ep. 34. [...]t 38. nulli subesse: And again, Cuncta Christi membra sibimet supponere universali­tatis appellatione. This was that title which Gr [...]gory the Great and his predecessours re­fused, (if they did refuse any such title). For it were evident madnesse to fancy, that ever any General Councel did offer any particular Bishop the title of the only Bishop of the world. This title in this sense was that which Gregory himself did condemn, as a vain, profane, wicked, blasphemous, Anti­christia [...] name.

Lastly, the name of Universal Bishop may be taken exclusively, for the only Bishop of the world. Which sense was far enough from the intention either of Gregory the Great, or Iohn of Constantinople, who had both of them so many true Archbishops and Bishops under them. But this sense agrees well enough with the extravagant ambition of the later Popes, and of the Roman Court, who do appropriate all ori­ginal Jurisdiction to themselves. So many waies is the Court of Rome guilty of Schis­matical pravity.

[Page 241] Besides these branches of Schisme, there are yet two other novelties challenged by the Popes, and their Parasitical Courtiers. But neither these nor the other yet defined by their Church, both destructive to Chri­stian unity, both apt to breed and nourish, to procreate and conserve Schisme. An infallibility of judgment, and a temporall power over Princes either directly or indi­rectly. General and Provincial Councels are the proper remedies of Schisme. But this challenge of infallibility diminisheth their authority, discrediteth their definiti­ons, and maketh them to be superfluous things. What needs so much expence? so many consultations? so much travel of so many poor old fallible Bishops from all the quarters of the world? when there is an infallible Judge at Rome, that can determine all questions in his own conclave, Conc. [...] Plat. in Ma [...]cellino. Ath [...]as. in Epist. ad solit. vitam agentes. without danger of errour. Was Marcellinus such an infallible Judge when he burned incense to Idols? Or Liberius when he consented to the Arrians, and gave his suffrage to the condemnation of blessed Athanasius? Or Honorius when he was condemned and ac­cursed in the sixth General Councel for a Monothelite? Hieron. in Chron. et Catal. Ec­clesi. Script. C [...]nc. Gen. 6. Act. 13. Gerson. Or Iohn the 22 ^th. when he was condemned by the Theologues of Paris, before the King, with sound of Trumpets, for teaching that the soules of the just shall not see God untill the general resur­rection? Sermon on Easter-day. were those succeeding Popes, [Page 242] Iohn, and Martine, and Formosus, and Stephen, and Romanus, and Theodorus, and Iohn, and Benedictus, and Sergius, who clashed one with another, and abrogated the decrees one of another over and over again, such infallible Judges? Neither is it meer mat­ter of fact to decree the Ordinations of a lawful Bishop to be void. To omit many others.

But howsoever they tell us, Conc. S­nuess. et Rom. That the first See cannot be judged. I will not trouble my self about the credit of the authorities, whether they be true or counterfeit; Nor whether the first See signifie Rome alone, or any other of the five Proto-Patriarchates. Thus much is certain, that by judgment of discretion any private man may judge the Pope, and withdraw from him in his errours, and resist him if he invade either the bodies or the soules of men, as Bellarmine confes­seth. That in the Court of Conscience every ordinary Pastour may judge him, and bind him, and loose him, as an ordinary man. And by their leaves in the external Court by coercive power if he commit civil crimes, the Emperour; if Ecclesiastical, a Councel, or the Emperour with a Councel may judge him, and in some cases declare him to be fallen from his Papal dignity by the sentence of the Law; in other cases if he be incorrigible, depose him by the sentence of the Judge. But there is a great diffe­rence between the judgment of Subjects, a [...] [Page 243] those Ecclesiasticks were, and the judgment of a Sovereign Prince; between the judg­ment of a General Councel, and the judg­ment of an assembly of Suffragans and infe­riours. And yet the Roman Clergy are known to have deposed Liberius their own Bishop, and justly. Or otherwise Foelix their Martyr had been a Schismatick.

Their other challenge of temporal power, whether directly or indirectly, and in ordine ad spiritualia, cannot chuse but render all Christians, especially Sovereign Princes, jealous and suspicious of their power, and averse from the communion of those per­sons, who maintain so dangerous positions so destructive to their propriety. The power of the ke [...]es doth not extend it self to any secular rights, neither can Ecclesiasti­cal censures alter or invalidate the Lawes of God and Nature, or the municipal Lawes of a Land. All which do injoyn the obe­dience of children to their Parents, and of Subjects to their Sovereignes. Gregory the seventh began this practice against Henry the fourth. But what Gregory did bind up­on earth, God Almighty did not bind in heaven. His Papal blessing turned to a curse; And instead of an Imperial Crown, Rodolph found the just reward of his trea­son.

The best is, that they who give these exorbitant priviledges to Popes, do it with [Page 244] so many cautions and reservations, that they signifie nothing, and may be taken away with as much ease as they are gi­ven.

The Pope (say they) is infallible, not in his Chamber, but in his Chair; not in the premisses, but in the conclusion; not in conclusions of matter of fact, but in con­clusions of matter of faith. Not alwaies in all conclusions of matter of faith, but onely when he useth the right means and due dili­gence. And who knoweth when he doth that? So every Christian is infallible, if [...]e would and could keep himself to the infal­lible rule which God hath given him. Take nothing, and hold it fast.

So likewise for his temporal power over Princes, they say the Pope, not as Pope, but as a spiritual Prince, hath a certain kind of power, temporal, but not meerly tempo­ral; not directly, but indirectly, and in or­der to spiritual things. Quo tencam vultus mutantem Protea nodo

CHAP. IX.
An Answer to the Objections brought by the Romanists, to prove the English Pro­testants to be Schismaticks.

BUt it is not enough to charge the Church of Rome, unlesse we can dis­charge our selves, and acquit our own Church of the guilt of Schisme, which they seek to cast upon us. First, they object, that we have separated our selves Schismatically from the communion of the Catholick Church. God forbid. Then we will acknowledge, without any more to do, that we have separated our selves from Christ, and all his holy Ordi­nances, and from the benefit of his Passion, and all hope of salvation.

But the truth is, We have not separa­ted our selves from the Ca­tholick Church. we have no otherwise separated our selves from the communion of the Catholick Church, then all the pri­mitive Orthodox Fathers and Doctours and Churches did long before us, that is, in the opinion of the Donatists, as we do now in the opinion of the Romanists; because the Romanists limit the Catholick Church now to Rome in Italy, and those Churches that are subordinate to it, as the Donatists did then to Cartenna in Africk, and those Churches that adhered to it. We are so [Page 246] far from separating our selves from the communion of the Catholick Church, that we make the communion of the Christian Church to be thrice more Catholick, then the Romanists themselves do make it, and maintain Communion with thrice so many Christians, as they do. By how much our Church should make it self, as the case stands, more Roman then it is, by so much it should thereby become lesse Catholick then it is.

I have shewed before out of the Canons and Constitutions of our Church, that we have not separated our selves simply and absolutely from the communion of any par­ticular Church whatsoever, even the Ro­man it self, so far forth as it is Catholick, but onely from their errours wherein they had first separated themselves from their predecessours.

To this I adde, that it was not we, but the Court of Rome it self that first separated England from the communion of the Church of Rome, [...]. Paul. 3. apud Sand. de Schism. l. 1. p. 109. by their unjust censures, excommu­nications and interdictions, which they thundered out against the Realm, for deny­ing their spiritual Sovereignty by Divine right, before the Reformation made by Pro­testants.

Secondly, we are charged with Schisma­tical contumacy and disobedience to the decrees and determinations of the General Councel of Trent. The Coun­cel of Trent n [...]t gene­ral. But we believe that [Page 247] Convent of Trent to have been no General, nor yet Patriarchal; no free, no lawfull Councel. How was that General, where there was not any one Bishop out of all the other Patriarchates, or any Proctours or Commissioners from them, either present, or summoned to be present, except perad­venture some tltular Europaean Mock-Pre­lates without cures, such as Olaus Magnus intituled Archbishop of Vpsala; Or Sir Robert the Scottish-man intituled Arch­bishop of Armagh? How was that Gene­rall, or so much as Patriarchal, where so great a part of the West was absent, where­in there were twice so many Episcopelles out of Italy, (the Popes professed Vassals, and many of them his hungry Parasitical pen­sioners,) as there were out of all other Christian Kingdoms and Nations put toge­ther? How was that general wherein there were not so many Bishops present at the determination of the weightiest controver­sies, concerning the rule of faith, and the exposition thereof, as the King of England could have called together in his own Do­minions at any one time upon a moneths warning? How was that general, which was not generally received by all Churches? even some of the Roman Communion not admitting it.

We have seen heretofore how the French Ambassadour in the name of the King and Church of France protested against it. And [Page 248] untill this day though they do not oppose it, but acquiesce, to avoid such disadvant­ages as must insue thereupon; yet they did never admit it. Let no man say that they rejected the determinations thereof onely in point of discipline, not of doctrine; for the same Canonical obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General Councell in point of discipline, as in point of Do­ctrine.

And as it was not General, so neither was it free, Not free. nor lawfull. Not free, where the place could afford no security to the one party, where the accuser was to be the Judge, Sleid. l. 17. where any one that spake a free word had his mouth stopped, or was turned out of the Councel, where the few Prote­stants that adventured to come thither, were not admitted to dispute, where the Legates gave auricular Votes, where the Fathers were noted to be guided by the spirit sent from Rome in a male, Hist. con. Trid. where divers not only new Bishops, but new Bishopricks were crea­ted, during the sitting of the Convent, to make the Papalins able to over-vote the Tramontains.

Nor yet lawfull in regard of the place, Nor law­full. which ought to have been in Germany. Actor debet rei forum sequi. A guilty person is to be judged in his Province. And the cause to be pleaded where the crime was com­mitted. And likewise in regard of the Judge. In every Judgment there ought to [Page 249] be four distinct persons; The accuser, the witnesse, the guilty person, and the Judge. But in the Councel of Trent the Pope by himself or his Ministers acted all these parts himself. He was the right guilty person, and yet withall the accuser of the Prote­stants, the witnesse against them, and their Judge. Lastly, no man can be lawfully con­demned before he be heard. Sleid. l. 23. But in this Councel the Protestants were not allowed to propose their case, much lesse to defend it by lawful disputation.

Thirdly, We have not sub­stracted our obedience from our lawful Pa­triarch. it is objected, and here they think they have us sure locked up, that we cannot deny but that the Bishop of Rome was our Patriarch, and that we have rebel­led against him, and cast off our Canonical obedience in our Reformation.

To this supposed killing argument I give three clear solutions.

First, That the B [...]itish Islands neither were, nor ought to be subject to the Juris­diction of the Roman Patriarch, as hath been sufficiently demonstrated in my third conclusion. For all Patriarchal Jurisdiction being of humane institution, must proceed either from some Canon or Decree of a Ge­neral Councel, or of such a Provincial Coun­cell as had power to oblige the Britons to obedience; Or from the grant or concessi­on of some of their Sovereign Princes, or from the voluntary submission of a free peo­ple; Or lastly, from custom and prescription. [Page 250] If they had any such Canon, or Grant, or submission, they would quickly produce it; but we know they cannot. If they plead custome and prescription immemorial, the burthen must rest upon them to prove it. But when they have searched all the Au­thours over and over who have written of British affaires in those daies, and all their Records and Registers, they shall not be able to find any one Act, or so much as any one footstep, or the least sign of any Roman Patriarchal Jurisdiction in Britaigne, or over the Britons for the first 600 years. And for after-ages the Roman Bishops neither held their old Patriarchate, nor gained any quiet settled possession of their new Monar­chy.

Secondly, I answer, That Patriarchal power is not of Divine right, but humane institution. And therefore may either be quitted or forfeited, or transferred. And if ever the Bishops of Rome had any Pa­triarchal Jurisdiction in Britaigne, yet they had both quitted it, and forfeited it over and over again, and it was lawfully trans­ferred. To separate from an Ecclesiastical authority which is disclaimed and disavow­ed by the pretenders to it, and forfeited by abuse and rebellion, and lawfully transfer­red, is no Schisme.

First, The Roman Bishops quitted their Patri­archate. I say they quitted their pretended Patriarchal right, when they assumed and usurped to themselves the name and thing of [Page 251] universal Bishops, Spiritual Sovereigns, and sole Monarchs of the Church, and masters of all Christians. To be a Patriarch and to be an universal Bishop in that sense are inconsistent, and imply a contradiction in adjecto; The one professeth humane, the other challengeth divine institution. The one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province, the other pretendeth to an un­limited Jurisdiction over the whole World. The one is subject to the Canons of the Fa­thers, and a meer executour of them, and can do nothing either against them, or besides them; The other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons, besides the Canons, against the Canons, to make them, to abrogate them, to suspend their influence by a non-obsta [...]te, to dispence with them in such cases wherein the Canon gives no dis­pensative power, at his own pleasure, when he will, where he will, to whom he will. Therefore to claime a power paramount and Sovereign Monarchical Royalty over the Church, is implicitely and in effect to disclaime a Patriarchal Aristocratical dig­nity.

So, Non tellus cymbam, tellurem cymba reli­quit: It was not we that deserted our pre­tended Patriarch, but our pretended Patri­arch deserted his Patriarchal office. So long as the Popes contented themselves with Patriarchal rights, they soared no higher then to be the executours of the Canons. [Page 252] When Acacius complained that he was condemned by the sole authority of the Roman Bishop, without a Synodal sentence, Gelssius the Pope then pleaded for himself, that Acacius was not the beginner of a new errour, G [...]l. c. 1. 24. qu. 1. but the follower of an old; And there­fore it was not necessary that a new Synodal sen­tence should be given against him, but that the old should be executed. Therefore (saith he) I have onely put an old sentence in execution, not promulged a n [...]w.

And as they had quitted their title, so likewise they had forfeited it, And for­eited it by rebellion. both by their Rebellion, and by their exorbitant abuses. First, by their notorious rebellion against General Councels. The authority of an in­feriour ceaseth when he renounceth his loyalty to his superiour, from whom he de­rives his power. A General Councel is the Supreme Ecclesiastical power, to which Pa­triarchal power was alwayes subordinate and subject: General Councels with the consent of Sovereign Princes have exempted Cities and Provinces from Patriarchal Juris­diction, Cone. Con­stant. C. 39. Con. Nic [...]n. C. 7. with the consent of Sovereign Princes they have erected new Patriar­chates, as at Hierusalem and Constantinople. And made the Patriarch of Constantinople equal in all priviledges to the Patriarch of old Rome. [...]. c. 25.

Against this Supreme Ecclesiastical power the Popes have not onely rebelled them­selves, but have compelled all Bishops [Page 253] under their Jurisdiction to take an oath to maintain their rebellious usurpations. When a President of a Province shall re­bell against his Sovereign Prince, and seek to usurpe the whole Empire to himself, and impose new oathes of allegiancc upon his fellow-subjects, it is not Treason, but Loy­alty in them to thrust him by the head and shoulders out of the gates of their City. When a Steward not imposed upon the fa­mily by the Master, but chosen in trust by his fellow-servants, during their Masters absence, shall so far violate his trust, that he will by force make himself the Master of the family, and usu [...]pe a dominion, not one­ly over his fellowes, but over his Masters Wife and Children, and oblige his fellow servants to acknowledge an independent Sovereign power in him; it is not want of duty, but fidelity to substract their obedi­ence from him.

This is our case with the Roman Bishops. They have sought to usurpe a dominion over the Catholick Church, the spouse of Christ, and all their fellow-servants. Then ought not all good Christians to adhere to the Catholick Church, and desert a schisma­tical Patriarch? They have rebelled against the representative Church, a general Coun­cel, should we involve our selves in their rebellion and perjury, by swearing to main­tain and make good their usurpations? I confesse, inferiours are not competent [Page 254] Judges of their Superiours. But in this case of a subordinate Superiour, and in a matter of Heresie or Schisme already defined by the Church, the sentence of the Judge is not necessary, the sentence of the Law, and the notoreity of the fact are sufficient. It is not we that judge him, but the Councels of Constance and Basile.

Neither could our Ancestours hope to have a General Councel suddenly, whilest so great a part of Christendom was under the Turk; nor a free Occidental Councel, whilest the usurper had all Ecclesiasticall power in his hands. What remained then, but to reform themselves? According to the sage advice of Gerson, Gers. 3. par [...]. Ap [...]l. de Conc. Con­stan. I see that the Re­formation of the Church will never be effected by a Councel, without the presidence of a well affected, wise and constant guide. Let the Mem­bers therefore provide for themselves th [...]oughout the Kingdomes and Provinces, when they shall be able, and know h [...]w to compasse this work.

Moreover, And by ab [...]se. as they have forfeited their power by their Rebellion, so they have most justly also by their rapine, extortions, and terrible and exorbitant abuses, the most shamefull abuses that ever were committed by persons trusted. To passe by the hun­dred grievances of Germany, the complaints and protestations, and pragmatical Sancti­ons of France, the memorials of Castile, the sobbes of Portugal, and to confine my dis­course [Page 255] to the sufferings of our own Nation, which have been more particularly related already in this Treatise, when I set down the grounds of our Reformation.

They robbed the King of his investitures of Bishops, Matth. Par. an. 1103. which Henry the first protested to the Pope himself by his Proctour, that he would not lose for his Kingdome, and added threatenings to his protestations. Yet to gratifie Anselme, who (though otherwise most deserving) was the first violater of the ancient customes of our Kingdome in that kind, Idem. an. 1107. he waved his right. But soon after resumed it, made Rodolph Bishop of London Archbishop of Canterbury, An. 1113. and invested him by a crosier and a ring. The like he did to many others.

They robbed the King of his patronages, by their collations, Nich. Clem: de corrupto Ecclesiae statu. and provisions, and ex­pectative graces. Two or three or ten be­nefices were not accounted sufficient for a Roman Courtier in those daies, but an hun­dred, or two hundred, or more. They rob­bed him of the last appeales of his Subjects, Math. Pa­ris. an. 1164. contrary to the ancient Lawes of England. They fomented the rebellion of his own Subjects at home, sometimes of his Barons, sometimes of his Bishops, playing fast and loose on both sides for advantage. They dis-inherited him of his Crown. They gave away his Kingdome for a prey to a forreign Prince. They incited strangers to make war against him. And they themselves by meer [Page 256] collusion and tricks had well near thrust him out of his Throne.

They robbed the Clergy in a manner of their whole Jurisdiction by their exempti­ons, and reservations, and visitations, and suspensions, and appeales, and Legantine Courts, and Nunciatures, thrusting their sickles into every mans harvest. They rob­bed them of their estates and livelihoods, by their provisions, and pensions, by their co­adjutorships, and first-fruits, and tenths, by the vast charge of their investitures, and palles, and I know not how many other sorts of exactions, and arbitrary impositi­ons. The most ancient of these was the pall, Baron. to. 11. An. 1027. whereof our King Canutus complained long since at Rome, and had remedy pro­mised.

They robbed the Nobility and Commo­nalty many waies, as hath been formerly re­lated. If all these were not a sufficient cause of forfeiture, certainly abuse did never for­feit office.

And though they had sometimes had a just Patriarchal power, Patriarchal power was lawfully transferred. and had neither for­feited it by rebellion nor abuse; Yet the King and the whole body of the Kingdome by their Legislative power substracting their obedience from them, and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions, it is a sufficient warrant for all English-men, to suspend their obedience to the one, and apply themselves to the other, for the wel­fare [Page 257] and tranquillity of the whole body po­litick, as hath before been declared.

Thirdly, The power which we rejected was not Patriarchal nor Can­onical. I answer, that obedience to a just Patriarch, is of no larger extent then the Canons of the Fathers do injoyn it. And since the division of Britaigne from the Em­pire, no Canons are, or ever were of force with us, further then they were received, and by their incorporation became Britannique Lawes. Which as they cannot, no [...] ever could be imposed upon the King and King­dome by a forreign Patriarch by constraint, so when they are found by experience pre­judiciall to the publick good, they may as freely by the same King and Kingdome be rejected.

But I shall wind up this string a little higher; Suppose that the whole body of the Canon Law were in force in England, (which it never was) yet neither the Papall power which we have cashiered, nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons, and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical, nor any withdrawing of Canonical obedience. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon Law, the same and no other had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Pro­vinces within his own Patriarchate. But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own Diocesse, without the con­currence of the Major part of the Bishops [Page 258] of his Province. Nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops.

Wherein then consisted Patriarchal au­thority? In ordaining their Metropolitans, (for with inferiour Bishops they might not meddle,) or confirming them, or imposing of hands, in giving the Pall, in convocating Patriarchal Synods, and presiding in them, in pronouncing sentence according to the plurality of voices. (That was when Metro­political Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent difficulties or differences.) And lastly, in some few honorary priviled­ges, as the acclamation of the Bishops to them at the latter end of a General Councel, and the like, which signifie not much. In all this there is nothing that we dislike or would seek to have abrogated. Never any Patriarch was guilty of those exactions, ex­tortions, incroachments upon the civil rights of Princes and their Subjects, or upon the Ecclesiastical rights of Bishops, or of those provisions, and pensions, and exemptions, and reservations, and dispensations, and inhibi­tions, and pardons, and indulgences, and usurped Sovereignty, which our Reformers banished out of England. And therefore their separation was not any waies from Pa­triarchal authority.

I confesse, that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so ma­ny Bishops, and keeping them so long toge­ther [Page 259] untill all causes were heard and deter­mined; And by reason of those inconve­niencies which did fall upon their Churches in their absence, Provincial Councels were first reduced from twice to once in the year, and afterwards to once in three years. And in processe of time the hearing of appeales and such like causes, and the execution of the Canons in that behalf, were referred to Metropolitans, untill the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs, and Me­tropolitans, and Bishops. Serpens serpentem nisi ederet, non fieret draco.

Peradventure it may be urged in the fourth place, That Gregory the Great, who by his Ministers was the first converter of the En­glish Nation, about the six hundreth year of our Lord, did thereby acquire to himself and his Successours a Patriarchal authority and power over England for the future. We do with all due thankfulnesse to God, and ho­nourable respect to his memory, acknow­ledge, that that blessed Saint was the chief instrument under God, to hold forth the first light of saving truth to the English Nation, who did formerly sit in darknesse and in the shadow of death, whereby he did more truly merit the name of Great, then by possessing the chair of Saint Peter. And therefore whilest the sometimes flourishing, now poor persecuted Church of England shall have any being ‘Semper honos nomen (que) suum laudes (que) man [...] ­bunt.’

[Page 260] But whether this benefit did intitle Saint Gregory and his Successours to the Patriar­chate of all or any part of the British Islands, Gregory the Great ac­quired no Patriarchal right in England by the con­ve [...]sion of it. deserves a further consideration.

First, consider, that at that time, and un­till this day, half of Britaigne it self, and two third parts of the Britannique Islands did re­main in the possession of the Britons, or Scot­tish and Irish, who still continued Christians, and had their Bishops and Protarchs, or Pa­triarchs of their own, from whom we do derive in part our Christianity, and holy orders, and priviledges. Without all con­troversie the conversion of the Saxons by Saint Gregory could not prejudice the just li­berties of them or their Successours.

Secondly, consider, that the half of Bri­taigne which was conquered and possessed by the Saxons, was not soly and altogether peopled by Saxons. A world of British Christians did remain and inhabit among the Conquerours. For we do not find, either that the Saxons did go about to extirpate the British Nation, or compell them to turn Renegadoes from their Religion, or so much as demolish their Churches. But contented themselves to chase away persons of emi­nency, and parts, and power, whom they had reason to suspect and fear: And made use of vulgar persons, and spirits, for their own advantage. This is certain, that Britaigne being an Island, whither there is no accesse by land, all those who were transported, or [Page 261] could have been transported by Sea on such a suddain, could not of themselves alone in probability of reason, have planted or peo­pled the sixth part of so much land as was really possessed by the Saxons.

And therefore we need not wonder if Queen Bertha a Gall [...]ise and a Christian, did find a Congregation of Christians at Can­terbury to joyn with her in her Religion, and a Church called Saint Martins builded to her hand; Bed. l. 1. c. 25. And stood in need of Lethargus a Bishop to order the affaires of Christian Religion, before ever Saint Austine set foot upon English ground. Neither did the British want their Churches in other places also, as appears by that Commission which the King did give to Austine, Bed. l. 1. c. 26. (among other things) to repair the Churches that were decayed. These poor subdued persons had as much right to their ancient priviledges, as the rest of the unconquered Britons.

Thirdly, consider, That all that part of Britaigne which was both conquered and inhabited by the Saxons, was not one intire Monarchy, but divided into seven distinct Kingdoms, which were not so suddenly con­verted to the Christian faith, all at once, but in long tract of time, long after Saint Gregory slept with his fathers, upon several occasi­ons, by several persons. It was Kent and some few adjacent Counties that was con­verted by Austine. It is true, that Ethelb [...]rt King of Kent after his own conversion, did [Page 262] indeavour to have planted the Christian faith both in the Kingdomes of Northum­berland and the East Angles, with fair hopes of good successe for a season. But alas, it wanted root. Within a short time both Kings and Kingdoms apostated from Christ, and forsook their Religion. The Kingdoms of the West Saxons and of the South Saxons under Kingils their King, Speed in the Kings of the West Saxons, An. 612. who did unite the heptarchy into a Monarchy, were con­verted by the preaching of Berinus an Ita­lian, by the perswasions of Oswald King of Northumberland. Osw [...]ld King of Northum­berland was baptized in Scotland, and Reli­gion luckily planted in that Kingdome by Aidan a Scottish Bishop. Bed. l. 3. c. 4. & 5. Penda King of Mercia was converted and christened by Fi­nanus Successour of Aidan by the means of a marriage with a Christian Princesse of the Royal Family of Northumberland. Bed. l. 3. c. 21. Sigibert King of the East Angles, Speed in the Kings of the East Angles, An. 624. in whose daies, and by whose means Religion took root among the East Saxons, was converted and christ­ned in France. All these Saxons which were converted by Britons or Scots, may as justly plead for their old immunities as the Britons themselves. We acknowledge Saint Gregory to have been the first that did break the ice. And yet we see how small a pro­portion of the inhabitants of the British Islands do owe their conversion to Rome, in probability not a tenth part.

Fourthly, consider, that the conversion of a [Page 263] Nation to the Christian faith, is a good ground in equity (all other circumstances concurring,) why they should rather submit themselves, or a General Councel assign them to that See that converted them, then to any other Patriarchate. As was justly pleaded in the case between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, about the right of Jurisdiction over the Bulgarians. But the conversion of a Nation is no ground at all to invest their converter presently with Pa­triarchal authority over them, or any Ec­clesiastical superiority, especially where too great a distance of place doth render such Jurisdiction uselesse and burthensome. And most especially where it cannot be done without prejudice to a former owner, thrust out of his just right meerly by the power of the sword, (as the British Primates were,) Or to the subjecting of a free Nation to a forreign Prelate, without or beyond their own consent. In probability of reason the Britons ought their first conversion to the Eastern Church, as appeareth by their ac­cord with them in baptismal rites, and the observation of Easter; Yet never were subject to any Eastern Patriarch. Sundry of our British and English Bishops have con­verted forreign Nations, yet never pretended to any Jurisdiction over them.

Fifthly and lastly, consider, That whatso­ever title or right S. Gregory did acquire, or might have acquired by his piety and deserts [Page 264] towards the English Nation, it was personal, and could not descend from him to such Successours, who both forfeited it many waies, and quickly (within four or five years) after his death quitted their Patriar­chate, and set an higher title to a spirituall Monarchy on foot, whilest the most part of England remained yet Pagan, when Pope Boniface did obtain of Phoeas the usurper, (an usurping Pope from an usurping Empe­rour) to be universal Bishop.

Their Canon-shot is past, that which re­mains is but a small volly of Muskets. They adde, that we have schismatically separated our selves from the Communion of our An­cestours, whom we believe to be damned. That we have separated our selves from our Ecclesiastical predecessours, by breaking in sunder the line of Apostolical succession, whilest our Presbyters did take upon them to Ordain Bishops, and to propagate to their Successours more then they received from their predecessours. That our Pres­byters are but equivocall Presbyters, want­ing both the right matter and form of Pres­byterial ordination. To extinguish the order is more schismatical, then to decline their authority. And lastly, that we de­rive our Episcopal Jurisdiction from the Crown.

First, for our natural Fathers, the answer is easie. We do not condemn them, nor separate our selves from them; Charity re­quires [Page 265] us both to think well and speak well of them. But prudence commands us like­wise to look well to our selves. We con­demn not our Fa­thers. We believe our fathers might partake of some errours of the Roman Church, we do not believe that they were guilty of any heretical pravity, but held alwaies the truth implicitely in the preparation of their minds, and were al­waies ready to receive it when God should be pleased to reveal it. Upon these grounds we are so far from damning them, that we are confident they were saved by a generall repentance. He that searcheth carefully into his own heart, to find out his errours, and repenteth truly of all his known sins, and beggeth pardon for his unknown errours, proceeding out of invincible or but proba­ble ignorance, in Gods acceptation repent­eth of all. Otherwise the very best of Chri­stians were in a miserable condition. For who can tell how oft he offendeth?

The second accusation of Priests conse­crating Bishops, Our Bi­shops not Ordained by Presby­ters. is grounded upon a sense­lesse fabulous fiction, made by a man of a leaden heart and a brazen forehead, of I know not what assembly of some of our Re­formers at the sign of the Nags-head in Cheapside, or rather devised by their malicious enemies at the sign of the Whetstone in Popes-head-Alley. Against which lying ground­lesse drowsie dream we produce in the very point the authentick records of our Church, of things not acted in a corner, but pub­lickly [Page 266] and solemnly, recorded by publick Notaries, Mason de Ministerio Anglicano, &c. preserved in publick Registers, whither every one that desired to see them might have accesse: And published to the world in Print whilest there were thousands of eye-witnesses living, that could have contradicted them if they had been feigned. There is no more certainty of the Corona­tion of Henry the eighth, or Edward the sixth, then there is of that Ordination, which alone they have been pleased to question, done not by one (as Austine consecrated the first Saxon Prelates,) but by five consecrated Bishops. Let them name the person or per­sons; And if they were Bishops of the Church of England, we will shew them the day▪ the place, the persons, when and where, and by whom, and before what publick No­taries or sworn Officers they were ordained. And this not by uncertain rumours, but by the Acts and instruments themselves. Let the Reader chuse whether he will give credit to a sworn Officer, or a professed adversary; to eye-witnesses, or to malicious reporters upon hearsay; to that which is done pub­lickly in the face of the Church, or to that which is said to be done privately in the corner of a Tavern.

These authentick evidences being upon occasion produced out of our Ecclesiasticall Courts, and deliberately perused and viewed by Father Oldcorn the Jesuit, he both pro­fessed himself clearly convinced of that [Page 267] whereof he had so long doubted, (that was the legitimate succession of Bishops and Priests in our Church,) and wished heartily towards the reparation of the breach of Christendome, that all the world were so abundantly satisfied as he himself was. Bla­ming us as partly guilty of the grosse mistake of many, for not having publickly and time­ly made known to the world the notorious falshood of that empty but far spread asper­sion against our succession. As for our parts, we believe Episcopacy to be at least in Apostolical institution, approved by Christ himself in the Revelation, ordained in the infancy of Christianity as a remedy against Schisme; And we blesse God that we have a clear succession of it:

Our matter and form in the Ordination of Presbyters is imposition of hands; Our matter and form in Presby­terial Or­dination justified. And these words, Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; And whose sins thou doest retain, they are retained, Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word and Sacra­ments. The form most agreeable to the Go­spel, practised throughout the Occidentall Church for a thousand yeares, approved by the Fathers, and by the most found and learned Roman Catholicks themselves. The form of Ordination in the Greek Church is no more but this, Imposition of hands, and these words, The Divine Grace which alwaies cureth that which is infirm, doth create [or pro­mote] A. B. a venerable sub-Deacon to be a [Page 268] Deacon, or a venerable Deacon to be a Priest, or a Priest beloved of God to be a Bishop. And yet no man ever doubted of the validi­ty of their Ordination, but they did alwaies, and do at this day execute their functions in the Roman Church; And discharge all du­ties belonging to their respective orders, as freely as in the Greek Church it self. We have the same matter that they have, we have the form more fully then they have, the Romanists themselves being Judges. Then what madnesse is it to allow of their Ordination, and dispute of ours, and upon a pretended defect in matter or form, to drive men to be re-ordained. Is not this to have the faith of our Lord Iesus Christ in respect of persons?

These grounds are over-weighty to be counterbalanced by the tradition of the pa­tine and of the chalice. An upstart custom or innovation, confirmed but the other day by the decree of Eugenius the 4 ^th. An. 1439. A time too late in conscience for introducing either a double matter and form, or a new matter and form of that, which is acknowledged by them, and not denied by us in a larger sense, to be a Sacrament: All we say is this, That it is not a Sacrament generally necessary to salvation, as Baptisme and the holy Eucha­rist are.

Neither do we draw or derive any spiri­tual Jurisdiction from the Crown: We derive no Jurisdi­ction from the Crown. But either liberty and power to exercise actually and [Page 269] lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we received at our Ordination; Or the inlargement and dilatation of our Jurisdiction objectively, by the Princes referring more causes to the cognisance of the Church then formerly it had: Or lastly, the increase of it subjective­ly, by their giving to Ecclesiastical Judges an external coercive power, which formerly they had not. To go yet one step higher. In cases that are indeed spiritual or meerly Ec­clesiastical, such as concern the doctrine of faith, or administration of the Sacraments, or the ordaining or degrading of Ecclesia­stical persons, Sovereign Princes have (and have only) an Architectonical power, to see that Clergy-men do their duties in their pro­per places. But this power is alwaies most properly exercised by the advice and Mini­stery of Ecclesiastical persons; And some­times necessarily, as in the degradation of one in holy Orders by Ecclesiastical Dele­gates.

Therefore our Law provides, that nothing shall be judged heresie with us denovo, but by the high Court of Parliament, wherein our Bishops did alwaies bear a part, with the assent (that is more then advice) of the Clergy in their Convocation. In summe, we hold our benefices from the King, but our offices from Christ. The King doth nomi­nate us, but Bishops do ordain us. I touch these things more briefly now, because I [Page 270] have handled them more at large in a full answer to all the objections brought by S. N. Doctour of Theology in the twentieth Chapter of the guide of faith, or the third part of his Antidote against our holy Or­ders, our Jurisdiction, and power to ex­pound Scripture. Which if God send op­portunity, may if it be thought convenient perhaps one day see the light. The con­founding of those two distinct acts intima­ted by me in this paragraph, that is, nomina­tion or election, with ordination or consecrati­on hath begotten many mistakes in the world on several sides. Among which the respect I owe to the British Churches will not permit me to passe by one untouched.

I have read related, Blondel. Apolog. p. 368. &c. but confusedly, out of venerable Bede, sundry Histories by very learned authours, of Aidan a Scottish Bishop sent to Oswald King of Northumberland for the conversion of his people from the Island of Hy, Bishops not subject to nor ordain­ed by Pres­byters of old in Britaigne. wherein was one of the principal Monasteries of the N [...]rthern or Ulster Scots, &c. Sicque eum ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunt, So the Colledge ordaining him Bishop sent him to preach. As likewise of Columbanus his coming into Britaigne, P. 370. where he had assigned unto him the Island Hy or Iona, for the building of a Monastery. Habere autem solet ipsa insula rectorem semper Abbatem Presbyterum, cujus juri & omnis Provincia, & ipsi etiam Episcopi ordine inusitato debeant esse subjecti. That Island used to have a Governour an Abbat a Presbyter, [Page 271] to whose jurisdiction both the whole Provincee, and the Bishops themselves by an unusual order ought to be subject. P. 367. These testimonies they account so clear as to be able to inlighten the dullest eye. And hence they conclude, not onely that Presbyters may ordain Bi­shops, and be their spiritual Governours, but that it was communis quodammod [...] Anglo­rum omnium regula, P. 371. a common rule of all the English in a manner, that Bishops being Monks should be subject to their Abbats.

I honour Bede as the light of his age, who justly gained to himself the name of Venera­ble throughout the Occidental Church. And I doubt not but he writ what he heard. But certainly he could not have such clear di­stinct knowledge of particular circumstan­ces as they who have been upon the place, and seen the records thereof.

First, there is a great mistake in the per­son; Columba and Columbanus lived both in the same age, but Columbanus was much the younger, who propagated Christian Religi­on much, but it was in other parts of the world. It was not Columbanus but Col [...]mba that converted the British Scots, and founded both the Bishoprick of Derry by another name, and the Abby of Derry. And like­wise the Bishoprick of the Isles in Scotland, and the Abby of Iona, he whom the Irish call to this day Columkill, quia multarum cel­larum Pater, (as his own Scholar gives the reason in the description of his life,) because [Page 272] he was the Father or founder of many Churches or Celles.

Secondly, they confound the places, the Abby of Derry or Derrimagh, quod lingua Scotorum significat campum roborum, (saith Bede,) which in Irish (that was the ancient Scottish) signifies a field or plain of Oakes, which was indeed situated in the territories of the Northern Vlster Scots, with the Abby of Iona situated in Britaigne.

Thirdly, they confound the actions, mission which is no more then nomination or electi­on, with Ordination or consecration. Who so proper to chuse a Bishop as the Chapiter? So was that Convent until the Reformation. Who so proper to Ordain as the Bishop▪ For neither Derry nor the Isles, did ever want a Bishop from their first conversion. So, re­ferendo singula singulis, the words of Bede are plain, the Chapiter named, and the Bishop Ordained.

Fourthly, they mistake the subjection. The Abbat was the Lord of the Manour, and so the Bishop was subject to the Abbat in temporalibus. But the Abbat was every where subject to the Bishop in spiritualibus, who did annually visite both the Abby and the Abbat, as by the visitation-rolles and records, (if these intestine wars have not made an end of them) may appear. You see upon what conjecturall grounds Criticks many times build new paradoxes, which one latent circumstance being known, is able to [Page 273] disperse and dissipate, with all their probable presumptions. If it had not been thus, It is no new thing for an Abbat to challenge Episcopal Jurisdiction, or to contend with his Bishop about it. What is this to meer Presbyters, qua tales?

Lastly, they contradict Venerable Bede. He saith it was ordine inusitato, by an unusuall order. They say it was in a manner the common rule of all the English. And this they say upon pretence of a decree of the Councel of He­reford, that such Bishops as had voluntarily pro­fessed Monkery, should perform their promised obedience. Which is altogether impertinent to their purpose. Doth any man doubt whether Bishops might freely of their own accord enter into a religious Order? or that they were not as well obliged to perform their vow as others? Some Emperours have done the same. Yet no man will conclude from thence, that Emperours are inferiour to Abbats.

Such mistakes are all their instances, ex­cept they light by chance upon an unfor­med Church, Unformed Churches no fit pre­sident. before it were well settled. As if a man should argue thus; There have been no Bishops in Virginia during the Reigns of King Iames and King Charles, therefore the Clergy there were Ordained by Presby­ters. We know the contrary, that they had their Ordination in England. So had the Clergy in unformed Churches, forreign Or­dination.

[Page 274] This is part of that which we have to say for a proper Patriarchate, and for our ex­emption from the Jurisdiction of the Roman Court, from which our separation is much wider then from the Roman Church. Other differences may make particular breaches, but the Roman Court makes the universal Schisme between them and all the rest of the Christian world, and hath been much com­plained of, and in part shaken off by some of their own communion. I could wish with all my heart that they were as ready to quit their pretended prerogatives, which not we alone, but all the world except them­selves, and a great part of themselves pri­vately, so condemn, as we should be to wave our just priviledges, and if need were to sacrifice them to the common peace of Christendome.

This was a more noble and a more speedy way to a re [...]union, then a Pharisaical com­passing of Sea and Land to make particular Proselytes, of all those whom either a natu­ral levity, or want of judgment, or discon­tent, or despair to see the Church of England re-established, or extream poverty, and expectation of some supply, have prepared for their baits; whom they do not court more untill they have gained them, then they neglect after they think they have them sure, as daily experience doth teach [...].

CHAP. X.
Th Conclusion of this Treatise.

THis is the Treatise of Schisme inti­mated in my answer to Monsi [...]ur de la militiere, but not promised by me, who know nothing of the im­pression, nor should have judged it proper to give an English answer to a French Au­thor. Howsoever being published I own it, except the errors of the Presse. Among which I desire the Christian Reader to take notice especially of one, because it perverts the sense. p. 65. l. 21. for [neither do you] [...] read [more­over you do] It is noted in the margent.

They who have composed minds free from distracting cares, and meanes to maintain them, and friends to assist them, and their books and notes by them, do little imagine with what difficulties poor Exiles struggle, whose minds are more intent on what they should eat to morrow, then what they should write, being chased as Vagabonds into the mercilesse world to beg relief of strangers. An hard condition, that when the meanest creatures are secured from that fear of wanting necessary sustenance, by the bounty of God and nature: that onely men the best of creatures, should be subjected to it [...] by undeserved cruelty. Peruse all the Histories of the latest wars, among Dutch, French, Swedes, Danes, Spaniards, Poles, Tartars and Turks, and you shall not meet [Page 276] with the like hard measure. Did the King of Spain conqner a Town from the Hollan­ders? He acquired a new Dominion, but the property of private men continued the same. Did the Hollanders take in a Town from the Spaniard? they made provision for the very Cloisterers, during their lives. So did our Henry the eighth also at the dissolution of the Abbies. Violent things last not long.

Or if Exiles can subsist without begging, yet they are necessitated to do or suffer things otherwise not so agreeable to them. Wherein they deserve the pity of all good men. When Alexander had conquered Da­rius, and found many Grecians in his Army, he commanded to detain the Athenians pri­soners, Plutarch. because having meanes to live at Rome, they chose rather to serve a Bar [...]arian; And the Thessalians because they had a fruit­full Countrey of their own to till; But (said he) suffer the The [...]ans to go free, for we have left them neither a City to live in, nor fields to till. This is our condition.

When the free exereise of the Roman Re­ligion was prohibited in E [...]gland, and they wanted Seminaries at home for the educati­on of their youth, and means of Ordination; Yet by the bounty of forreign Princes, and much more by the free contribution of our own Countrey-men of that communion, they had Colledges founded abroad for their sub­sistance. So careful were they to propagate and perpetuate their Religion in their native [Page 277] Countrey. The last age before these unhappy tro [...]bles was as fruitful in works of piety and charity done by Protestants, as any one pre­ceding age sin [...]e the conversion of Britaign [...]. And although we cannot hope for that for­reign assistance which they found, yet might we have expected a larger supply from home, by as much as our professours are much more numerous then theirs were. Hath the sword devoured up all the charitable Obadiahs. in our Land? Or is there no man that layes the affliction of Ioseph to heart? Yet God that maintained his people in the Wildernesse with­out the ordinary supply of food or rayment, will not desert us, untill he turn our captivity as the rivers in the South. Where humane help faileth, Divine begins.

But to draw to a conclusion: We have seen in this short Treatlse how the Court of Rome hath been the cause of all the differences and broiles between the Emperours with other Christian Princes and States, and the Popes. We have seen that from the excesses, abuses, innovations and extortions of that Court, have sprung all the Schismes of the Eastern and Western Church, and of the Occidentall Church within it self. We have heard the confession of Pope Adrian, that for some yeares by-past many things to be abominated had been in that holy See, abuses in spiritual matters, excesses in commands, and all things out of order. We have heard his promise to endeavour the Reformation of his own Court, from whence pe [...]adventure all [Page 278] the evil did spring, that as corruption did flow from thence to the inferiour parts, so might health and Reformation. To which he accounted himself so much more obliged, by how much he did see the whole world greedily desire a Reformation.

We have viewed the representation which nine selected Cardinals and Prelates did make upon their oathes to Paul the third: That this lying flattering pri [...]ciple, that the Pope is the Lord of all benefices, and therefore could not be Simo [...]ia­call, was the fountain from whence as from the Trojan horse so many abuses, and so gri [...]vou: diseases had [...] into the Church, and brought it to a desperate condition, to the d [...]rision of Christian Religion, and blasp [...]eming of the Name of Christ, and that the cure must begin there, from whenc [...] the disease did sp [...]ing.

We may remember the memorial of the King of Spain, and the whole Kingdome of Castile, That the abuses of the Court of Rom [...] gave occasion to all the Reformations and Schisme [...] of the Church. And the complaint of the King and Kingdom of Portugal, That for these rea­sons many Kingdomes had withdrawn their obedi­ence and reverential respect from t [...]e Church of Rome. These were no Protestants. The first step to health, is to know the true cause of our disease.

It hath been long debated whether the Pro­testant and Roman Churches be reconciliable or not. Far be it from me to make my self a Judge of that Controversie. Thus much I have observed, that they who understand the [Page 279] sewest controversies make the most, and the greatest. If questions were truly stated by moderate persons, both the number and the height would be much abated. Many diffe­rences are grounded upon mistakes of one an­others sense. Many are meer logomachies or contentions about words. Many are meerly Scholastical above the capacity and apprehen­sion of ordinary brains. And many doubtlesse are real both in credendis and agendis, both in doctrine and discipline. But whether the di­stance be so great, or how far any of these are necessary to salvation, or do intrench upon the fundamentals of Religion, requires a seri­ous, judicious, and impartial consideration. There is great difference between the reconci­liation of the persons, and the reconciliation of the opinions. Men may vary in their judgments, And yet preserve Christian unity and charity in their affections, one towards another, so as the errours be not destructive to fundamental Articles.

I determine nothing, but onely crave leave to propose a question to all moderate Christi­ans, who love the peace of the Church, and long for the re-union thereof. In the first place, if the Bishop of Rome were reduced from his universality of Sovereign Jurisdicti­on, jure Divino, to his principium unitatis, and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fa­thers, which was the sense of the Councels of Constance and Basile, and is desired by many Roman Catholicks as well as we. Secondly, [Page 280] if the Creed or necessary points of faith were reduced to what they were in the time of the four first Oecumenical Councels, according to the decree of the third General Councel, Conc. Eph, Part. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. (Who dare say that the faith of the primitive Fathers was in­sufficient?) Admitting no additional Articles, bur onely necessary explications; And those to be made by the authority of a General Councel, or one so general as can be convo­cated: And lastly, supposing, that some things from whence offences either given or taken, (which whether right or wrong, do not weigh half so much as the unity of Christians,) were put out of divine offices, which would not [...]e refused if animosities were taken away, and charity restored; I say, in case these three things were accorded, which seem very re [...] ­sonable demands, whether Christians might not live in an holy communion, and joyn in the same publick worship of God, free from all Schismatical separation of themselves one from another, notwithstanding diversities of opinions, which prevail even among the members of the same particular Chrches, both with them and us.