Of Schism, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Their third Evidence from our caſting off Obedience to the Biſhop of Rome at the Reformation.
§. 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter, the power of Kings in general, and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates; whatſoever can be pretended againſt the lawfulneſſe of the Reformation in theſe kingdomes, will eaſily be anſwered. And therefore ſuppoſing the third, and laſt objection to lie againſt our Reformation, that it was founded in the caſting off that obedience to the Biſhop of Rome, which was formerly paid him by our Biſhops, and people under them, I ſhall now briefly deſcend to that, firſt laying down the matter of fact, as it lies viſible in our records, and then vindicating it from all blame of ſchiſme, which according to the premiſes can any way be thought to adhere to it.
§. 2. The hiſtory of what was done againſt the Biſhop of Rome in the Reformation.And firſt for the matter of fact, it is acknowledged, that in the reigne of King Henry VIII. the Papal (and with it all forein) power in Eccleſiaſtical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergie, and by ſtatutes or acts of Parliament, caſt out of this kingdome. The firſt ſtep or degree hereof was the Clergie's ſynodical recognizing the King, ſingularem Eccleſiae Anglicanae Protectorem, unicum & ſupremum Dominum—the ſingular Protector, the only and ſupreme Head of the Church of England, Upon this were built the ſtatutes of 24 Hen: VIII. prohibiting all Appeals to Rome, and for the determining all Eccleſiaſticall ſuits, and controverſies within the kingdome; The ſtatute of 25 Hen: VIII. for the manner of electing and conſecrating of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and another, in the ſame year, prohibiting the payment of all impoſitions to the court of Rome, and for the obtaining all ſuch diſpenſations from the See of Canterbury, which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome, and that of 26 Hen: VIII. declaring the King to be the ſupreme head (which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was, to avoid miſtakes, changed into ſupreme Governour) of the Church of England, and to have all honours and praeeminencies, which were annexed to that title.
§. 3. This was in the next place attended with the ſubmiſſion of the Clergie to the King, agreed on, firſt in Convocation, and afterward in 25 Hen: VIII. enacted by Parliament, to this purpoſe, that as it was by the Clergie acknowledged that the Convocation of the Clergie then was, alwaies had been, and ought to be aſſembled by the Kings writ, and as they ſubmitting themſelves to the King's Majeſtie had promiſed in verbo ſacerdotis, that they would never from thenceforth preſume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or exerciſe any new Canons, Conſtitutions, Ordinances Provincial or other— unleſſe the King's moſt royal aſſent may to them be had to make, promulge, & execute the ſame— ſo it was now enacted, that none of the Clergie ſhould enact, promulge, or execute any ſuch Canons, Conſtitutions, and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical, without aſſent and authority received from the King, upon pain of impriſonment, and fine at the Kings pleaſure.
§. 4. The third and laſt ſtep of this began with the debate of the Ʋniverſities, and moſt eminent Monaſteries in the kingdome; An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat, pluſquam alii cuiquam Epiſcopo extero? Whether any authority did of right belong to the Biſhop of Rome in the Kingdome of England more then to any other forein Biſhop? and upon agitation, it was generally defined in the negative, and ſo returned teſtified under their hands and ſeals. The like was ſoon after concluded, and reſolved by the Convocation of the Biſhops, and all the Clergie, and ſubſcribed and confirmed by their corporal oathes: And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Eccleſiaſticae poteſtatis, ſet out by the Prelates, the chief compoſers of which were, John Stokeſly, Biſhop of London; Cutbert Tunſtall, Biſhop of Durham; Stephen Gardiner, Biſhop of Wincheſter; and Dr Thirlby afterward Biſhop; where from the practiſe of the Saxon, and firſt Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Negative out of ſtory. And what was thus concluded by the Clergie was ſoon turned into an Act of Parliament alſo in 28 Hen: VIII. called An Act extinguiſhing the authority of the Biſhop of Rome, and preſcribing an oath to all Officers Eccleſiaſtical, and lay, of renouncing the ſaid Biſhop and his authority.
§. 5. By theſe three degrees it is acknowledged that the Biſhops and Clergie firſt, then the King confirming the Acts of the Convocation, and after making Acts of Parliament to the ſame purpoſes, renounced the authority of the Roman See, and caſt it out of this Iſland;The Praemunire. and though the firſt Act of the Clergie in this were ſo induced, that it is eaſie to believe that nothing but the apprehenſion of dangers which hung over them (by a Praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, & therefore I ſhall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their firſt will, and choice, but that which the neceſſity of affairs recommended to them, yet the matter of right being upon that occaſion taken into their moſt ſerious debate in a ſynodical way, and at laſt a fit and commodious expreſſion uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt conſent of both houſes of the Convocation, there is no reaſon to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profeſſe, the fear being the occaſion of their debates, but the reaſons or arguments offered in debate, the cauſes (as in all charity we are to judge) of their deciſion.
§. 6. But I ſhall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity, becauſe if that which was thus determined by King and Biſhops were falſly determined, then the voluntarineſſe, or freeneſſe of the determination will not be able to juſtifie it, and on the other ſide, if the determination were juſt, then was there truth in it, antecedent to, and abſtracted from the determination, and it was their duty ſo to determine, and crime that they were unwilling to doe it. And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry, Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII. the Biſhop of Rome were ſupreme head, or Governour of this Church of England, or had any real authority here, which the King might not lawfully remove from him to ſome other, viz: to the Archbiſhop of Canterbury, if he pleaſed.
§. 7. The Right of the Biſhop of Rome conſidered.And this is preſently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid, and confirmed to have truth in them. For the pretenſions for the Popes ſupremacy of power among us being by the aſſertors thereof founded in one of theſe three, either in his right (as S. Peter's ſucceſſour) to the Ʋniverſal Paſtorſhip, that including his power over England, as a member of the whole; or 2. by the paternal right which by Auguſtine's planting the Goſpel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope (and his ſucceſſours) that ſent him; or 3. in the voluntary conceſſion of ſome Kings; the two former of theſe have been largely diſproved already, Chap. 4, 5, and 6. in diſcourſes purpoſely, and diſtinctly applied to thoſe pretenſions. The conceſſion of Kings.And for the third, that will appear to have received its determination alſo, I. by the abſoluteneſſe of the power of our Princes, (to which purpoſe I ſhall mention but one paſſage, that of †in Goldaſt: de Mon:G. de Heimburg, ſome two hundred years ſince in the laſt words of his tract de Injuſt: Ʋſurp: Pap: where ſpeaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope, he ſaith, that this is a ſubmiſſion in him, and a patience above what any other ſuffers, and proves it by this argument, Nam eximius Rex Angliae, Franciae, Dux, Marchio, non aſtringitur Papae quocunque juramento: factus Imperator jurare tenetur ſecundum Decretales eorum fabuloſè fictas, ita ut ſupremus Monarcha magis ſervilis conditionis, quàm quilibet ejus inferior fieri cenſeatur, The King of England and France, any Duke or Marqueſſe of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath, yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to ſwear according to the Popes Decretals fabulouſly invented, ſo that the ſupreme Monarch is made to be of a more ſervile condition then any his inferior Prince—.) And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates, and will be farther confirmed in the Negative, if anſwer be firſt given to this Dilemma.
§. 8. A Dilemma againſt the plea drawn from that.The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome, which is pretended to be held by the conceſſion of our Kings, was either ſo originally veſted in our Kings, that they might lawfully grant it, to whom they pleaſed, pleaſed, and ſo did lawfully grant it to the Pope; or it was not thus originally veſted in our Kings; If it were not, then was that grant an invalid, null grant, for ſuch are all conceſſions of that which is not ours to give, preſumptions, invaſions, robberies in the giver, which devolve no right to the receiver, and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded: But if that authority were ſo veſted in the Kings of England, that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleaſed, (which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal conceſſion) then certainly the ſame power remains ſtill veſted in the King to diſpoſe it from him to ſome other as freely, as the ſame King may upon good cauſes remove his Chancellour, or any other of his officers from his place, and commit it to another (this way of arguing is made uſe of by the Biſhops in Convocation, Anno Chr: 1537. in the Book by them intituled [The Inſtitution of a Chriſtian man]) Or if the ſame power doe not ſtill remain in the King, then is the King's power diminiſhed, and he conſequently by this his act, of which we treat, become leſſe a King, then formerly he was, And then we know that ſuch acts which make him ſo, are invalid acts, it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himſelf, to diveſt himſelf and his ſucceſſors of any part of his regal power.
§. 9.Two ſorts of gifts. To which purpoſe it muſt be obſerved, 1. that ſome things are ſo ours, that we may freely uſe them, but cannot freely part with them, as all thoſe things, wherein our propriety is not confined to our perſons, but intailed on our poſterity, and ſuch the regal power is ſuppoſed to be; 2. That as ſome things which are part of our perſonal proprieties, are ſo freely ours to give, that when they are given, they are departed out of our ſelves, and cannot juſtly be by us reſumed again (in which caſe that Maxim of the civil law ſtands good, data eo ipſo qu… dantur, fiunt accipientis, what is given, by the very act of being given, becomes the goods of the receiver) ſo other things are given to others, ſo as we doe not part with them our ſelves, they are as truly, and properly ours, after, as before the Conceſſion.
§. 10. Some revocable.Thus the Sun communicates his beams, and with them his warmth and influences, and yet retains all which it thus communicates, and accordingly withdraweth them again, And God the ſpring of all life, and grace, doth ſo communicate each of theſe, that he may, and doth freely withdraw them again, and when he taketh away our breath we die— And thus certainly the King, being the fountain of all power and authority, as he is free to communicate this power to one, ſo is he equally free to recall, and communicate it to another, And therefore may as freely beſtow the power of Primate, and chief Metropolitan of England, or (which is all one) of a Patriarch, on the Biſhop of Canterbury, having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Biſhop of Rome, as he or any of his Anceſtors can be deemed to have granted it to the Biſhop of Rome; And then as this being by this means evidenced to be no more then an act of regal power, (which the King might lawfully exerciſe) takes off all obligation of obedience in the Biſhops to the Pope, at the firſt minute, that he is by the King diveſted of that power, or declared not to have had it de jure, but only to have aſſumed it formerly (which freedome from that obedience immediately clears the whole buſineſſe of ſchiſme, The reaſonableneſſe of revoking it.as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful ſuperiour) ſo will there not want many weighty reaſons, deducible from the antient Canons, as well as the maximes of civil government, why the King who may freely place the Primacy, where he pleaſe, ſhould chooſe to place it in a Biſhop and ſubject of his own nation, rather then in a forein Biſhop farre removed, and him not only independent from that King, but himſelf enjoying a Principality, or territorie, which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly, and to improve the conceſſions, which are either acknowledged, or pretended to be made him, to that purpoſe.
§. 11. And here it is not amiſſe to obſerve, in the reign of Queen Mary, Title & power of Supreme head of the Church retained by Queen Mary.who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgie, and made all ſpeed to repeal what had been done in King Edward's time in that matter, yet 1. that ſhe left not the title of Supreme head, till the third Parliament of her reigne; and 2. that in the ſecond Parliament authority is granted her to make, and preſcribe to all ſuch Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, as were erected by Henry the VIII. ſuch ſtatutes and orders as ſhould ſeem good to her, and that ſtatute never repealed but expired: 3. that in her third Parliament it was with much difficulty obtained, that the ſupremacie of the Pope ſhould be acknowledged, the matter being urged by her, as that which concerned the eſtabliſhing the Matrimonie of her Mother, and her legitimation, which depended upon the abſolute power of the Pope: 4. that in the 4th year of her reigne, when the Pope ſent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England, and to be Biſhop of Sarisbury, ſhe would not permit him to come into the Land, neither could he have that Biſhoprick, which as it was ſome check to the Pope's abſolute ſupremacy, and an aſſertion and vindication of the Regal power, ſo being added to the former it will be leſſe ſtrange, that this Supreme power of the Popes ſhould be by the Biſhops in the reigne of Henry VIII. diſclaimed, and ejected.
§. 12. Upon this bottome the foundation of Reformation being laid in England, the ſuperſtructure was accordingly erected by the King and Biſhops and Clergie in Convocation, but this not all at once, but by diſtinct ſteps and degrees. Somewhat in the reigne of this Henry the VIII. as in the number of the Sacraments, the uſe of the Lords Prayer &c. in the Engliſh tongue, and the tranſlation of the Bible, all reſolved on in Synod, the King which duly aſſembled it, preſiding in it by his Vicar General.
§. 13. This was much farther advanced in the time of his ſon Edward the VI. who being a childe, The advance of the Reformation in Kng Edward's daies.and the Laws and Conſtitution of this Realm committing the exerciſe of the Supreme power in that caſe, into the hands of a Protector, what was thus regularly done by that Protector, cannot be doubted to be of the ſame force, and validity, as if the King had been of age, and done it himſelf; Or if it ſhould, it would be an unanſwerable objection againſt all hereditary, ſucceſſive Monarchy, a maim in that form of Government, which could no way be repaired, there being no amulet in the Crown, which ſecures the life of each King, till his ſucceſſor be of age, nor promiſe from heaven that the children of ſuch Princes ſhall, by ſucceeding to the Crown, advance by miracle to the years, and abilities of their Parents, So irrational is the ſcoffe, and exception of ſome, that what was done in King Edward's daies being the Acts of a childe is as ſuch to be vilified ▪ and deſpiſed.
§. 14. In the Reign of this Prince, many Changes were made in the Church, and Receſſions from the Doctrines, and practiſes of Rome; Beſide that of Images, the lawfulneſſe of the marriage of the Clergie was aſſerted, a body of an Engliſh Liturgie formed, and ſetled for publick uſe, the Euchariſt appointed to be adminiſtred to the people in both kindes, &c. and though Biſhop Gardner of Wincheſter, and Biſhop Bonner of London made oppoſition againſt theſe changes, and for ſome misbehaviours herein, were impriſon'd, (and two more moderate, learned men, Biſhop Tunſtal of Durham, and Biſhop Day of Chicheſter, upon another ſcore) yet Archbiſhop Cranmer, and the reſt of the Biſhops making up the farre greater number, joyned with the Supreme power in the Reformation. And as it is no great marvell, that there ſhould be ſome (ſo few) diſſenters, ſo the puniſhment inflicted on them will not be deemed exceſſive by any, that ſhall compare it with the farre ſeverer executions, the fire, and fagot, which were ſoon after in Queen Mary's daies inflicted on Archbiſhop Cranmer, Biſhop Ridley, and Biſhop Latimer, as the reward of their diſputing in the Synod againſt Tranſubſtantiation, (and the like cruelties on multitudes more) and the Exiles, and deprivations, which befell ſo many others in her Reigne; However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reigne of King Edward, wrought, as hath been ſaid, by the Supreme power, with the conſent of the major part of Biſhops.
§. 15.In Queen Elizabeth's. That which afterward followed in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's reigne, may be thought more diſtant, and leſſe reconcileable to our pretenſions, (not that of her ſex, her being a woman, for ſo was Qu. Mary before, which acted ſo vigorouſly for the contrary way, and the conſtitution of our Monarchy inveſts equally either ſex in the plenitude of Regal power, in ſacred, as well as civil affairs, and it was but to raiſe envie againſt the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's ſex, as before King Edward's non-age hath by ſome been thought fit to be mention'd, and cannot by any ſober judgment be admitted to have any force in it) but becauſe, as it is from our hiſtories more pertinently objected, moſt of the Biſhops were by her diveſted of their dignities, and new created in their ſtead, To this therefore in the laſt place, I muſt apply my ſelf to give ſatisfaction. And 1.
§. 16. In this matter, as much as concerns the Ordination of thoſe new Biſhops, that it was performed regularly, according to the Antient Canons, each by the Impoſition of the hands of three Biſhops, hath been evidently ſet down out of the Records, and vindicated by Mr Maſon in his Booke de Miniſt: Anglic: and may there be view'd at large, if the Reader want ſatisfaction in that point.
§. 17.The Creation of new Biſhops in Queen Elizabeth's time, vindicated. As for the ſecond remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place, it will receive anſwer by theſe degrees, Firſt that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbiſhop of Canterbury, falling neer upon the death of her Predeceſſor Queen Mary, it was very regular for Queen Elizabeth to aſſigne a ſucceſſor to that See, then vacant, Archbiſhop Parker; 2dly, that thoſe Biſhops, which in Queen Mary's daies had been exiled, and deprived, and had ſurvived that calamity, were with all juſtice reſtored to their dignities; 3dly, that the Biſhops by her deprived, and diveſted of their dignities, were ſo dealt with, for refuſing to take the oath of Supremacy, formed and enjoyned in the daies of Henry the VIII. and in the firſt Parliament of this Queen revived, and the ſtatutes concerning it reſtored to full force, before it was thus impoſed on them. So that for the juſtice of the cauſe of their deprivation, it depends Immediatly upon the Right and power of the Supreme Magiſtrate to make laws, to impoſe oathes for the ſecuring his Government, and to inflict the puniſhments, preſcribed by thoſe laws, on the diſobedient, but Originally upon the truth of that deciſion of the Biſhops, and Clergie, and Ʋniverſities, in the reigne of Henry the VIII. that no authority belonged in this Kingdome of England to the Biſhop of Rome, more then to any other forein Biſhop. The former of theſe I ſhall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth, in the maintenance of which all Government is concerned, and hath nothing, peculiar to our pretenſions, which ſhould ſuggeſt a vindication of it in this place, And the ſecond hath, I ſuppoſe, been ſufficiently cleared in the former chapters of this diſcourſe, which have examined all the Biſhop of Romes claims to this Supremacy, And both theſe grounds being acknowledged (or, till they be invalidated, or diſproved, ſuppoſed) to have truth, and force in them, the concluſion will be ſufficiently induced, that there was no injuſtice in that Act of the Queens, which diveſted thoſe Biſhops, which thus refuſed to ſecure her Government, or to approve their fidelity to their lawful▪ Soveraign.
§. 18. Fourthly, that thoſe Biſhops being thus deprived, it was moſt Regular, and Neceſſary, and that againſt which no objection is imaginable, (that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared) that other Biſhops ſhould be nominated, and advanced to thoſe vacant Sees, and that what ſhould be for the future acted by thoſe new Biſhops in Convocation was regular, Synodical, and valid beyond all exception in reſpect of the formality of it.
§. 19. Fiftly, that as by the Ʋniform and joynt conſent of theſe Biſhops thus conſtituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Religion was agreed on, and ſet out by Order of both Archbiſhops, Metropolitans, and the reſt of the Biſhops, for the Ʋnity of doctrine, to be taught, and holden of all Parſons, Vicars, and Curates &c. and this not before the third year of that Queens reigne, So before this time there had not been, as farre as appears, any debate in any former Convocation of that Queens reigne concerning Religion (only an offer of a diſputation betwixt eight Clergie-men on each ſide, which came to nothing) but all done by the Parliaments reſtoring what had been debated, and concluded by former Synods, in the reigns of King Henry the eight, and Edward the ſixt, without any new deliberation in any preſent Synod. By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Supremacy, as alſo of the book of Common-prayer, as it was in the time of Edward the ſixt, (with few alterations) which included the abolition of the Romiſh Miſſalls. And ſo all this again, as farre as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the Reformation, is regularly ſuperſtructed on the forementioned foundation of Regal Supremacy (with the concurrence, and adviſe of Synods) which hath been in the former part of this diſcourſe (I hope, ſufficiently) vindicated.
§. 20. And that being granted, it cannot be here neceſſary, or pertinent to deſcend to the conſideration of each ſeveral matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church, either as branches of the Reformation, or under the name, or title of it. For our preſent enquirie being no farther extended, then this, whether the true Church of England, as it ſtands by Laws eſtabliſhed, have in Reforming been guilty of Schiſme, as that ſignifies in the firſt place a receſſion, and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiours, and this being cleared in the Negative, by this one evidence, that all was done by thoſe, to whom, and to whom only, the rightful power legally pertained, viz: the King, and Biſhops of this Nation, ſuppoſing (as now regularly we may, having competently proved it, and anſwered all the colours, that have been offered againſt it) that the Pope had no right to our obedience, and conſequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our ſuperiours, it is preſently viſible, that all other matters will belong to ſome other heads of Diſcourſe, and conſequently muſt be debated upon other principles, All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it ſhould (as I believe it will never) be proved to be unjuſt, falling under the head of Hereſie, not of ſchiſme; and for acts of ſacrilege, and the like impieties (as certainly Henry the eighth, and ſome others, cannot be freed from ſuch) they are by us as freely charged upon the actors, as by any Romaniſt they can be, But yet ſacrilege is no more ſchiſme, then it is adulterie, and the Church, on which one ſin hath been committed, cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other.