THE first Challenge for Lordly Primacie hath of old been grounded out of the great Charter, by which they hold an Epis­copal Primacie or Iurisdiction to belong to their states of Prelacie, this is their Temporall foundation and main obje­ction.

Here I demand of them, unto what Church this great Charter was granted, and whether it were not granted to the Church of GOD in England, let the word [Page 2] of Magna Charta, deside this, which are their Concessimus pro nobis & in perpetuum quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit habeat omnia, sua Jura Integra, & libertates suas­illaesus. Now by this Charter if it be rightly interpreted, there is first provisi­on made, the honour and worship should be yeelded unto God, as truly, and indeed belongs to him.

2. Secondly, That not onely such Rights and Liberties as the King and his Progenitors, but also such as God had or­dained the Church of England, which should be inviolably preserved. And in­deed such onely are to be preserved, in­deed such onely are to be called the rights and Liberties of the Church of England, which God himself hath given by his Law unto the universall Church. And not that which the King of England by their Charter have bequeathed to the par­ticular Church of England. And this no doubt was the cause that moved Hen. the eighth so effectually and powerfully to bend himself against the Popes Su­premacie [Page 3] usurped at that time over the Church of England, (for saith the King) we will with hazard of our life, and losse of our Crown, uphold and defend in our Realms, whatsoever we shall know to be the will of God.

The Church of God in England not being free according to the great Charter, but in bondage and servitude to the See of Rome, contrary to the Law of God, the King iudged it to stand highly with his Honor, and with his Oath, to reform, re­dresse, and amend the abuses of the same See.

If therefore it might please our graci­ous Soveraign Lord King CHARLES in imitation of those his Noble Pro­genitors, to vouchsafe an abolishment of all Lordly Supremacie, executed by Ar­chiepiscopall and Episcopall Authority, over the Ministers of Christ: his High­nesse in so doing could no more rightly be charged with the violation of the great Charter, then might King Hen. the eighth with the banishment of Popes Supre­macie, [Page 4] or then our late Soveraign Queen Eliz could be iustly burthened with the breach of her Oath, by the establishment of the Gospel.

Now if the Kings of England by rea­son of their Oath, were so straitly tyed to the words of the great Charter, that they might not in any sort have disanul­led any supposed Rights or Liberties of the Church then used, and confirmed by the said Charter unto the Church that then was supposed to be the Church of God in England. Then belike King Hen. the eight might be attainted to have gone against the great Charter, and against his Oath, when by the overthrow of Abbies and Monasteries, he took away the Rights and Liberties of Abbots and Pri­ors, for the expresse word of the great Charter, Abbots and Priors, had as large and ample a Pattent for their Rights and Liberties, as our Archbishops and Bi­shops can at this day challenge for their Primacie.

If then the Rights and Liberties of the [Page 5] one as being against the Law of God, be duely and lawfully taken away, notwith­standing any matter, clause, or sentence contained in the great Charter, the other have but little reason under the colour of the great Charter to stand upon their pantables, and contend for their painted sheathes: for this is a Rule and Maxime in Gods Laws, Quod in omni Iuramento sem­per excipitur authoritas Maioris: Vnlesse then they be able to justifie by the holy Scriptures to such Rights and Liberties as they pretend for their spirituall Supre­macie over the Ministers of Christ, be in deed and truth conferred unto them by the holy Law of God, I suppose the Kings Highnesse as Successor to Hen. 8. and as more just Inheritor to the Crown of England, by the words of the great Char­ter, and by his Oath, are bound utterly to abolish all Lordly Primacy as hither­to upheld, and defended, partly by Igno­rance, and partly by unreasonable and evill Custome.