And in this point you are to know that it hath been and still is the general and constant judgement of the greatest Lawyers of this Kingdome, that the vesting of the Supremacy in the Crown Imperial of this Realm, was not Introductory of any new Right or Power which was not in the Crown before, but Declaratory of an old, which had been anciently and originally inherent in it, though of late Times usurped by the Popes of Rome, and in Abeyance at that time, as our Lawyers phrase it. And they have so resolved it upon very good reasons: the principal managery of affairs which concern Religion being a flower inseparably annexed to the Regal Diadem, not proper and peculiar only to the Kings of England, but to all Kings and Princes in the Church of God, and by them exercised and enjoyed accordingly in their times and places. For who, I pray you, weee the men in the Iewish Church who destroyed the Idols of that people, cut down the Groves, demolished the high places, and brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent, when abused to Idolatry? Were they not the godly Kings and Princes only which sway'd the Scepter of that Kingdome? And though 'tis possible enough that they might do it by the counsel and advice of the High Priests of that Nation, or of some of the more godly Priests and Levites (who had a zeal unto the Law of the most high God) yet we finde nothing of it in the holy Scripture; the merit of these Reformations which were made occasionally in that faulty Church, being ascribed unto their Kings, and none but them. Had they done any thing in this which belonged not to their place and calling, or by so doing had intrenched on the Office of the Priests and Levites, that God who punished Vzzah for attempting to support the Arke when he saw it tottering, and smote Osias with a Leprosie for burning incense in the Temple (things which the Priests and Levites only were to meddle in) would not have suffered those good Kings to have gone unpunished, or at least uncensured, how good so ever their intentions and pretences were. Nay, on the contrary, when any thing was amisse in the Church of Iewry, the Kings, and not the Priests were admonished of it, and reproved for it by the Prophets; which sheweth that they were trusted with the Reformation, and none else but they. Is it not also said of David, that he distributed the Priests and Levites into several Classes, alotted to them the particular times of their Ministration, and designed them unto several Offices in the Publick Service? Iosephus adding to these passages of the Holy Writ, That he composed Hymns and Songs to the Lord his God, and made them to be sung in the Congregation, as an especial part of the publick Liturgy. Of which, although it may be said that he composed those Songs and Hymns by vertue of his Prophetical Spirit, yet he imposed them on the Church, appointed singing-men to sing them, and prescribed Vestments also to these singing-men, by no other power then the regal only: None of the Priests consulted in it, for ought yet appears.

The like authority was exercised and enjoyed by the Christian Emperors, not only in their calling Councels, and many times assisting at them, or presiding in them by themselves, or their Deputies, or Commissioners; but also in confirming the Acts thereof. He that consults the Code and Novelles in the Civil Lawes, will finde the best Princes to have been most active in things which did concern Religion, in regulating matters of the Church, and setting out their Imperial Edicts for suppressing of Hereticks. Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia? What hath the Emperor to do in matters which concern the Church? is one of the chief Brand marks which Optatus sets upon the Donatists. And though some Christians of the East have in the way of scorn had the name of Melchites (men of the Kings Religion, as the word doth intimate) because they adhered unto those Doctrines which the Emperors, agreeable to former Councels, had confirmed and ratified: yet the best was, that none but Sectaries and Hereticks put that name upon them. Neither the men, nor the Religion was a jot the worse. Nor did they only deal in matters of Exterior Order, but even in Doctrinals, matters intrinsecal to the Faith; for which their Enoticon set out by the Emperor Zeno for setling differences in Religion, may be proof sufficient.

The like authority was exercised and enjoyed by Charles the Great, when he attained the Western Empire, as the Capitulars published in his Name, and in the names of his Successors, do most clearly evidence; and not much lesse enjoyed and practised by the Kings of England in the elder Times, though more obnoxious to the power of the Pope of Rome, by reason of his Apostleship (if I may so call it): the Christian Faith being first preached unto the English Saxons, by such as he employed in that holy Work. The instances whereof dispersed in several places of our English Histories, and other Monuments and Records which concern this Church, are handsomely summed up together by Sir Edward Coke in the fift part of his Reports, if I well remember but I am sure in Cawdries Case, entituled, De Iure Regis Ecclesiastico. And though Parsons (the Iesuite) in his Answer unto that Report, hath took much pains to vindicate the Popes Supremacy in this Kingdome, from the first planting of the Gospel among the Saxons; yet all he hath effected by it, proves no more then this, That the Popes, by permission of some weak Princes, did exercise a kinde of concurrent jurisdiction here with the Kings themselves, but came not to the full and entire Supremacy, till they had brought all other Kings and Princes of the Western Empire; nay even the Emperors themselves under their command. So that when the Supremacy was recognized by the Clergy in their Convocationt to K. H. 8. it was only the restoring of him to his proper and original power, invaded by the Popes of these later Ages; though possibly the Title of Supreme Head seemed to have somewhat in it of an Innovation. At which Title, when the Papists generally and Calvin in his Comment on the Prophet Amos, did seem to be much scandalized, it was with much wisdome changed by Q. Elizabeth into that of Supreme Governour, which is still in use. And when that also would not down with some queasie stomachs, the Queen her self by her Injunctions, published in the first year of her Reign, and the Clergy in their Book of Articles agreed upon in Convocation about five years after, did declare and signifie, That there was no authority in sacred matters contained under that Title, but that only Prerogative which had been given alwaies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, That they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their change by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and to restrain, with the Civil Sword, the stubborn and evil doers; as also to exclude thereby the Bishop of Rome from having any jurisdiction in the Realm of England, Artic. 37. Lay this unto the rest before, and tell me (if you can) what hath been acted by the Kings of England in the Reformation of Religion, but what is warranted unto them by the practise and example of the most godly Kings of Iewry, seconded by the most godly Emperors in the Christian Church, and by the usage also of their own Predecessors in this Kingdome, till Papal Usurpation carried all before it. And being that all the Popes pretended to in this Realm was but Usurpation, it was no wrong to take that from him which he had no right to, and to restore it at the last to the proper Owner. Neither Prescription on the one side, nor discontinuance on the other, change the case at all: that noted Maxim of our Lawyers that no prescription bindes the King (or Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, as their own words are) being as good against the Pope, as against the Subject.

This leads me to the second part of this Dispute, the dispossessing of the Pope of that supreme Power, so long enjoyed and exercised in this Realm by his Predecessors. To which we say that though the pretensions of the Pope were antient, yet they were not Primitive: and therefore we may answer in our Saviours words, Ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning. For it is evident enough in the course of story, that the Pope neither claimed nor exercised any such Supermacy within this Kingdome in the first Ages of this Church, nor in many after; till by gaining from the King the Investiture of Bishops under Henry the I. the exemption of the Clergy from the Courts of Justice under Henry the 2. and the submission of King Iohn to the See of Rome, they found themselves of strength sufficient to make good their Plea. And though by the like artifices, seconded by some Texts of Scripture, which the ignorance of those times incouraged them to abuse as they pleased, they had attained the like Supremacy in France, Spain, and Germany, and all the Churches of the West: yet his incroachments were opposed, and his authority disputed upon all occasions, especially as the light of Letters did begin to shine. Insomuch as it was not only determined essentially in the Councel of Constance (one of the Imperial Cities of High Germany) that the Councel was above the Pope; and his Authority much curbed by the Pragmatick Sanction, which thence took beginning: but Gerson the learned Chancellor of Paris wrote a full discourse, entituled, De auferibilitate Papae, touching the totall abrogating of the Papall Office; which certainly he had never done in case the Papall Office had been found essential and of intrinsecal concernment to the Church of Christ. According to the Position of that learned man the greatest Princes in these times did look upon the Pope and the Papall power as an Exceescence at the best in the body mystical; subject and fit to be pared off as occasion served: though on self-ends, Reasons of State, and to serve their several turns by him as their needs required, they did and do permit him to continue in his former greatnesse. For Lewis the 11. King of France in a Councel of his own Bishops held at Lions, cited Pope Iulius the 2. to appear before him: and Laustrech Governour of Millaine under Francis the 1. conceived the Popes authority to be so unnecessary (yea even in Italy it self) that taking a displeasure against Leo the 10. he outed him of all his jurisdiction within that Dukedome, anno 1528. and so disposed of all Ecclesiasticall affairs; ut praefecto sacris Bigorrano Episcopo omnia sine Romani Pontificis autoritate administrarentur, as Thuanus hath it, that the Church there was supremely governed by the Bishop of Bigorre (a Bishop of the Church of France) without the intermedling of the Pope at all. The like we finde to have been done about six years after, by Charles the fift Emperor and King of Spain, who being no lesse displeased with Pope Clement the 7. abolished the Papall power and jurisdiction out of all the Churches of his Kingdomes in Spain. Which though it held but for a while, (till the breach was closed) yet left he an example by it (as my Author noteth) Ecclesiasticam disciplinam citra Romani nominis autoritatem posse conservari, that there was no necessity of a Pope at all. And when K Henry the 8. following these examples, had banished the Popes authority out of his Dominions, Religion still remaining here as before it did (the Popes Supremacy not being at that time an Article of the Christian Faith, as it hath since been made by Pope Pius the 4.) that Act of his was much commended by most knowing men, in that without more alteration in the face of the Church Romanae sedis exuisset obsequium (saith the Author of the Tridentine History) he had freed himself and all his subjects from so great a Vassallage. Now as K. Henry the 8. was not the first Christian Prince, who did de facto abrogate the Popes authority: so was he not the last that thought it might be abrogated if occasion were. For to say nothing of King Edward the 6. and Queen Elizabeth two of his Successors, who followed his example in it: we finde it to have been resolved on by K. Henry the 4. of France who questionlesse had made the Archbishop of Bourges the Patriarch of the Gallicane Church, and totally with drawn it from acknowledging of the authority of the See of Rome, had not Pope Clement the 8. (much against his will) by the continual solicitations of Cardinal D' Ossat, admitted him to a formal Reconciliation, on his last falling off to popery. How neer the Signeury of Venice was to have done the like, anno 1608 the History of the Interdict, or of the Quarrels betwixt that State and Pope Paul the 5. doth most plainly shew. This makes it evident, that in the judgement and esteem of most Christian Princes (in other things of the Religion of the Church of Rome) the Popes Supremacy was looked upon as an incroachment; and therefore might be abrogated upon better reasons, then it had formerly been admitted in their several Kingdomes. By consequence the doing of it here in England, neither so injurious or unjust as your Zelots make it.

Project Canterbury