I. stated in PART Catholics themselves did make the first separation". To which his first answer is, "If it were so, how doth that the Vindi- acquit us, since continuance in a breach of this nature is as culpable as the beginning"?" cation; viz. that not Protestants but Roman Catholics did make tion.] even if they were guilty.] Many ways. First, it is a violent presumption of their guilt and our innocence, when their best friends and best the separa- able to judge, who preached for them, and writ for them, [1. We are who acted for them, and suffered for them, who in all other thereby acquitted, things were great zealots of the Roman religion, and persecuted the poor Protestants with fire and faggot, did yet condemn them, and justify this separation. Secondly, though it doth not always excuse'a toto'-from all guilt and punish[Matt. xv. ment, to be misled by others into error,—“ if the blind lead 14.] the blind, both fall into the ditch,"-yet it doth always excuse a tanto' it lesseneth the sin, and extenuateth the guilt. Persons misled by the example and authority of others are not socul pable as the first authors and ringleaders in schism. If this separation be an error in Protestants, the Roman Catholics do owe an account to God both for themselves and us. Did they find cause to turn the Pope out of England, as an intruder and usurper, and could Protestants, who had no relation to Rome, imagine that it was their duties to bring him in again? Thirdly, in this case it doth acquit us not only a tanto,' but a toto;' not only from such a degree of guilt, but from all criminous schism; so long as we seek carefully after truth, and do not violate the dictates of our consciences. If he will not believe me, let him believe St. Austin." He that defends not his false opinion with pertinacious animosity, having not invented it himself but learned it from his erring parents, if he 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 heretice." If this be true in the case of heresy, it is more true in the case of schism. Thus, if it had been a crime in them, yet it is none in us; but in truth it was neither crime in them nor us, but a just and necessary duty. III. Secondly, he answereth, that it is no sufficient proof that DISCOURSE they were no Protestants, "because they persecuted Protestants," for "Protestants persecute Protestants: Lutherans, were not Calvinists, Zwinglians, Puritans, and Brownists, persecute Protestants, one another.” [2. They although they rejected the What then, were Warham, and Heath, and Thurlesby, Pope.] 265 Tunstall, and Stokesley, and Gardiner, and Bonner, &c., all Protestants? Did Protestants enjoy Archbishoprics and Bishoprics in England, and say Masses, in those days? Will he part so easily with the greatest patrons and champions of their Church, and opposers of the Reformation? If he had writ thus much whilst they were living, they would have been very angry with him. Yet at the least, if they were Protestants, let him tell me which of these sects they were of; "Lutherans," &c. But he telleth us, that "the renouncing of the Pope is the most essential part of our reformation," and so they "had in them the quintessence" of a Protestants. He is mistaken; this part of the reformation was done to our hands; it was their reformation, not ours. But if he will needs have the kingdoms and Churches of England and Ireland to have been all Protestants in Henry the Eighth's days, only for renouncing the Pope's absolute universal monarchy, I am well contented; we shall not lose by the bargain. Then the primitive Church were all Protestants; then all the Grecian, Russian, Armenian, Abyssene Christians are Protestants at this day; then we want not store of Protestants even in the bosom of the Roman Church itself. SECTION THE THIRD. [Of the Fourth Chapter of the Vindication.] ground the Vindi My "second" ground (saith he) was, "Because, in the [The separation of England from Rome, there was no new law second made, but only their ancient liberties vindicated." This he is stated in pleased to call "notoriously false" and "impudence itself," cation; viz. because "a law was made in Henry the Eighth's time, and separation [Ibid., p. 311.] f [Down-Derry, p. 310.] that in the PART I. an oath invented, . . . by which was given to the king to be Head of the Church, and to have all the power the Pope did from Rome at that time possess in England"." of England no new law was made.] [Henry VIII.'s statutes were declarative, not ope rative.] Is this the language of the Roman schools? Or doth he think perhaps with his outcries and clamours (as the Turks with their Allah, Allah) to daunt us and drive us from our cause? Christian reader, of what communion soever thou art, be but indifferent, and I make thee the judge where this "notorious falsehood" and "impudence" doth rest, between him and me. I acknowledge this was the title of my fourth chapter, that "the king and kingdom of England, in the separation from Rome, did make no new law, but vindicate their ancient liberties." It seemeth he confuteth the titles, without looking into the chapters; did I say they made no new statutes? No, I cited all the new statutes which they did make, and particularly this very statute which he mentioneth here'. Yet I said, they "made no new law," because it was the law of the land before that statute was made. The customs and liberties of England are the ancient and common law of the land; whensoever these were infringed, or an attempt made to destroy them (as the liberties of the Crown and Church of England had then been invaded by the Pope), it was the manner to restore them, or to declare them by a statute, which was not operative to make or create new law, but declarative to manifest or to restore ancient law. This I told him expressly in the Vindication, and cited the judgment of our greatest lawyers, Fitz-Herbert and my Lord Coke, to prove that this very statute was not operative to create new law, but declarative to restore ancient law. This appeareth undeniably by the statute itself:-"that England is an empire," and that the king, as "Head" of the "body politic" consisting of the "spiritualty and temporalty," hath "plenary power" to "render final justice for all matters'." Here he seeth expressly, that the political supremacy or Headship of the king over the spiritualty as well as temporalty, which is all that we assert at this day, was the ancient fundamental law of England. See h[Ibid., from Just Vindic., c. iv.] k [Just] Vindic., c. iv. [vol. i] pp. [151, 152.] 124 Hen. VIII. c. 12. [§ 1.] 266 III. And lest he should accuse this Parliament of partiality, I DISCOURSE produced another that was more ancient." The Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subjected to God in all things touching its regality, and to no other, and ought not to be submitted to the Popem." Here the king's political supremacy under God is declared to be the fundamental law of the land. Let him not say, that this was intended only in temporal matters; for all the grievances mentioned in that statute are expressly ecclesiastical. What was his meaning, to conceal all this and much more, and to accuse me of impudence? Papal Secondly, he saith, that I "bring divers allegations, [The wherein the Pope's pretences were not admitted," or where claims re"the Pope is expressly denied the power to do such and such jected by the English things;"-" do we profess the Pope can pretend no more than not merely his right ?-doth he think a legitimate authority is rejected, tions of when the particular faults of them that are in authority are resisted" ?" He styleth the authorities by me produced mere "allegations;" yet they are as authentic records as England doth afford. But though he be willing to blanch over the matter in general expressions of "the Pope's pretences," and "such or such things," as if the controversy had been only about a handful of goat's wool, I will make bold to represent some of "the Pope's pretences," and their declarations against them. And if he be of the same mind with his ancestors in those particulars, he and I shall be in a probable way of reconciliation as to this question. They declared, that it was the custom or common law of the land, "ut nullus præter licentiam regis appelletur Papa"-" that no Pope might be appealed unto without the king's licence"." They made a law, that, "if any one were found bringing in the Pope's letters or mandates into the kingdom, let him be apprehended, and let justice pass upon him without delay, as a traitor to the king and kingdom"." They exercised a legislative power in all ecclesiastical causes, concerning the ex[p. 219. See Just Vindic., c. iv. p. 135. note i.] 16 Rich. II. c. 5. [§ 1. See Just Vindic., c. iv. vol. i. p. 147.] [Down-Derry, pp. 311, 312.] P Hoveden, in Hen. [II. p. 496. See exaggera rights.] I. PART ternal subsistence, regiment, and regulating of the Church, and over all ecclesiastical persons, in all ages, as well of the Saxon as of the Norman kings. They permitted not the Pope to endow vicars, nor make spiritual corporations, nor exempt from the jurisdiction of the ordinary, nor appropriate Churches, nor to dispose benefices by lapse, nor to receive the revenues in the vacancy, but the king did all these things; as I shewed at large in the Vindication. They permitted not the Pope's canon law to have any place in England further than they pleased to receive it'. They gave the king the last appeal of all his subjects; they ascribed to him the patronage of Bishoprics, and investitures of Bishops; they suffered no subject to be cited to Rome without the king's licence; they admitted no legates from the Pope, but merely upon courtesy; and if any was admitted, he was to take his oath to do nothing derogatory to the king or his Crown: if any man did denounce the Pope's excommunication in England without the king's consent, or bring over the Pope's Bull, he forfeited all his goods. So the laws of England did not allow the Pope to cite or excommunicate an English subject, nor dispose of an English benefice nor send a legate-à-latere, or so much as an authoritative Bull, into England, nor to receive an appeal out of England, without the king's licences. [Papal authority not limited but denied by the English laws.] But, saith he, "to limit an authority implies an admittance of it in cases to which the restraints extend not." This was not merely to "limit" an authority, but to deny it. What lawful jurisdiction could remain to him in England, who was not permitted by law to receive any appeal thence, nor to send any citation or sentence thither, nor execute any authority over an English subject, either at Rome by himself, or in England by his deputies, without licence? That he exercised all these acts at some times, there is no doubt of it. But he could not exercise them lawfully without consent. Give us the same limitation which our ancestors always [See Just Vindic., ibid. 139.] 137 pp. S [See the] Stat. of Clarend.-the Stat. of Carlisle [35 Edw. I. c. 4. § 3]. -the Artic. Cleri [9 Edw. II. c. 14]. -[the Stat. of Provisors,] 25 Edw. III. [Stat. 6. § 3].-[2]7 Edw. III. c. [1.]; 16 Rich. II. c. 5. [Statutes of Præmunire.]-Placit., an. 1. Hen. VII. et an. 32 et 34. Edw. I. [and the Just Vindic., c. iv. vol. i. pp. 141-148.] t [Down-Derry, p. 312.] |