of the pope as a papal ufurpation; for who can be fo fimple as to believe, that fuch fubmiffion could have been forced upon the English nation, who were ever jealous of their liberty, against their confent, by one hundred and feventy-one popes, who during. that space of time filled the papal fee.

We must allow to our ancestors the fame, right and the fame obligation of following the dictates of their confciences, which we claim and acknowledge ourfelves. By the OVE tenets of the religion, which they then profeffed, the fpiritual primacy of the visible fucceffor of St. Peter was an effential article of their belief; their fubmiffion therefore to the bishop of Rome, as fuch visible acknowledged head of the church was as free, as their adoption of the religion, which taught the neceffity of fuch a primacy. What an abfurdity would it not be, to speak of the belief and profeffion of the Roman catholic religion in Poland or Portugal as an ufurpation? And if our ancestors thought proper Confent of the to make a free voluntary tender and fecurity tent with ufurto the bishops of Rome, either of Peter pation. Pence, firft fruits, or any other civil advantage, or benefit, how can that be called an ufurpation, which could neither have been originally impofed, nor continue to be en

forced

nation inconfif

King Henry's belief of and fubmiffion to the pope's fupremacy the

of its actual

'existence.

forced by any civil or human means, with out the confent of the nation? The fact demonftrates the truth! For from the mo ment, in which the nation withdrew their confent, from that moment the bishop of Rome enjoyed no more civil or temporal rights, benefits, nor advantages within this kingdom, than St. Peter did from our hea then British ancestors, who inhabited the ifland in his days.

As to this point, I know of no authority, that can be fo conclusive, as that of king Henry himself, who, about ten years before the paftrongest proof fing of this act, in defence of the fpiritual fupremacy of the pope against Martin Luther, wrote a book, which he fubfcribed with his own hand, and fent to pope Leo X. by Dr. Clerke, the bifhop of Bath and Wells, and for which he obtained the title of defender of the faith, which has been ever fince kept up by our fovereigns to this day.

* I will not offer fo much injury unto the pope, as earnestly and carefully to dif pute heere of his right, as though the matter might be held in doubt; it is fufficient for that, which now we haue in hand, that this enemy (Luther) fhewed himself so much

Henry VIII. in Def. Sacram. cont. M. Luth.

to

to be carried away with paffion and fury, as he taketh all faith and credit from his owne fayings, cleerly declaring his malice to be fuch, as it suffereth him neither to agree with himself, nor to confider what he faith."

And then, after confuting Luther's opinion and affertion, that the pope neither by diuine or humane law, but anlie by ufurpation and tyrannie, had gotten the headshipp of the church, he continues, “Luther cannot deny, but that all the faithfull chriftian churches at this daie doe acknowledge and reuerence the holy fea of Rome, as their mother and primate, &c. And if this acknowledgment is grounded neither in diuine nor humane right, how hath it taken fo great and generall roote? How is it admitted fo univerfally by all christendome? When began it? How grew it to bee fo great? And whereas humane confent is fufficient to giue humane right at least, how can Luther faie, that heere is neither diuine nor humane right, where this is, and hath been for time out of minde, uniuerfall humane confent? Truly if a man will looke ouer the monuments of things and times. paft, he fhall find that presently after the world was pacified (from perfecution) the most parte of christian churches did obay the Roman; yea, and the Greeke church alfo,

though

though the empire were paffed to that parte, wee fhall find, that thee acknow ledged the primacy of the fame Romaine church, but only when fhee was in schisme. And as for S. Hierome, though he were no Roman, yet did hee in his daies afcribe fo much authoritie and preheminence to the Roman church, as he affirmed, that in mat ters of great doubt it was fufficient for his faith to bee allowed and approued by the pope of Rome, &c." And he fays further.

"Whereas Luther fo impudently doth affirme, that the pope hath his primacie by no right, neither diuine nor humane, but onlie by force and tyrannie, I do wonder how the mad fellow could hope to find his readers fo fimple or blockish, as to beleiue, that the bishop of Rome, being a prieft, unarmed, alone, without temporall force or right, either diuine or humane (as he supposed) fhould bee able to get authoritie ouer fo manie other bithops his equals, throughout fo manie and different nations, fo far off from him, and fo little fearing his temporall power; or that fo manie people, citties, kingdomes, commonwealths, prouinces, and nations could bee fo prodigall of their owne libertie, as to fubject themfelues to a forraine prieft (as now manie ages they haue done) or to give him

fo

fuch

fuch authoritie ouer themfelues, if he had no right thereunto at all."

I cite thefe quotations, not for the fake of the reafoning or argument contained in them, but merely to prove, that the autho rity of the fee of Rome, in all-fpiritual matters, was in fact freely fubmitted to by the community of this realm, before the refor imation. For nobody will fufpect King Henry VIII. of fubmitting tamely, and with full reflection, to any ufurped or affumed authority whatsoever.

premacy is.

We are now to examine what this primacy What the fu was, which was fuppofed to be transferred from the pope to the king, in order to determine what the fupremacy of the king over the church of England is at this hour. Sir Edward Coke, partly from official pomp and rigour, and partly from natural pedantry and pride, has undertaken to reft the title of his fovereign to his prerogative of fpiritual fupremacy upon fuch grounds, as never can ftand the test of a cool difpaffionate enquiry.

"The kingdom of England being an abfolute empire and monarchy, confifting of one head, which is the king, and of a body politicke divided into two general parts, the clergy and the laity; both of them, next un