upon the Universities abroad was demanded by the Parliament from the Clergy at home because it was said that the Cardinal and some other chief amongst them were thro their falshood and dissimulation the cause of this Forreign Expence Which Summe they resolutely refusing to contribute the whole Clergy are sued by the King and condemned by the Kings Bench in a Premunire also for receiving and acknowledging the Cardinals Power Legantine exercised by him ignorantly or presumptuously without the Kings consent and allowance first obtained The Clergy thus become liable at the Kings pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and confiscation of their Estates assemble themselves in the House of Convocation offer to pay for their Ransome the demanded 100000 l. § 20 But the King having now no hopes of obtaining a Licence for his Divorce from the Pope who at this time stood much in awe of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine that the Popes Decrees might be of no force against him negociates also by his Agents with the Clergy whilst in these fears to give him the Title of Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters within his Dominions making account that this obtained he had the assent of his own Clergy at his beck for the nulling of his former Marriage Therefore in the drawing up of the Clergy's Petition to the King for release of the Premunire it was signified from the Court cujus consilii Cranmerus Cromwellus clam authores fuisse existimabantur saith the Author Antiq. Brittanic p. 325. that a Title should be prefixed wherein they should stile the King ecclesiae cleri Anglicani Protector supremum Caput or else the Petition would not be accepted To which with some difficulty they agreed so as qualifying it with this Clause Quantum per legem Christi licet But the King again excepting at this limitation as unworthy the Clergy who either did or ought to know and definitively instruct others what Christs Law did or did not allow at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted See Antiquit. Brittannic p. 326. Sed Regi saith that Author displicuit ancipitem dubiamque mitigationem moderationem verborum a cleri sui Synodo quae de Christi lege aut certa fuit aut certa esse debuit tam frigide proferri Itaque Cromwellum ad Synodum iterum mandans eam aut tolli voluit aut clerum incursas Sanctionum paenas pati Omnium igitur ex sententiis Rex sine ambiguitate ullâ ecclesiae Angliae supremum caput declaratus est But yet this was not done till after the Clergy who much alledged that the King or some of his Successors might upon this Title ruine the Church of England in their ordering Spiritual matters without or against the Clergy thereof had obtained a voluntary promise from him to this effect That he would never by vertue of that Grant assume to himself any more power over the Clergy than all others the Kings of England had assumed nor that he would do any thing without them in altering ordering or judging in any Spiritual matters See Bishop Fisher's Life published by Dr. Bayly And this was the first Act of the Clergy which being so understood as excluding all authority of the Western Patriarch over the Church of England and transferring such authority for the future to the King is contrary to the Fourth Thesis because some such authority was conferred on this Patriarch by Superior Councils And which Act was so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledged of Schism 7. c. it is easy to believe See Church Gov. 1. Part §. 4. and §. 20. that nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it § 22 After the conceding of this Title of Supremacy to the King and exclusion of the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions and the voiding of all appeals made hence unto him and after the Kings Marriage to Anne Bullen also but before the publication thereof Cranmer being now chosen Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon the death of Warham a Favourer of the Queen Katherine's Cause Summons her to appear before him and some other Bishops and Commissioners and upon her neglect solemnly dissolveth the Kings former Marriage with her and divorceth him from her § 23 But the Kings ends thus obtained yet things rested not here And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it But whereas formerly till the Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth the Synods of the Clergy saith Dr. Heylin § 1. p 7. after called by the Kings Writ acted absolutely in their Convocations of their own authority the Kings or Parliaments assent or ratification neither concurring nor required and whereas by this sole authority which they had in themselves they made Canons declared Heresies convicted and censured persons suspected of Heresy c Now they having declared the King supream Head of the Church instead of the Pope the Western Patriarch it seemed reasonable therefore that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head And conducing much to this end as I learn from the forenamed Dr was a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons after the Ice was broken A. 1532. See Fullâ—rs Appeal of Injur'd Innocence Pa. 2. p. 65. In which saith he they desiring that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament and that their Acts and Constitutions should not bind their Subjects as before in their Goods and Possessions until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power they shewed themselves aggrieved that the Clergy of this Realm should act authoritatively and supreamly in the Convocation and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent An Answer unto which Remonstrance saith he was drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester and being allowed of by both Houses of Convocation was by them presented to the King But the King not satisfied with this Answer resolved to bring them to his bent and therefore on the Tenth of May sent a Paper to them by Dr. Foxe after Bishop of Hereford in which it was peremptorily required that no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted promulged or put in execution unless the Kings Highness do approve the same and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution c. Whereupon on the Fifteenth of the same Month they made their absolute submission So He. And thus the next step therefore of this Reformation was that the King so requiring it they bound themselves by a Synodical Act for the time to come not to assemble themselves at all without the Kings Writ and when assembled not to enact promulge or execute any Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
expressed and as I think some of these Instances in the Parliaments Acts c made above do confirm tho some Writers in our latter times seem to be somewhat unwilling to acknowledge it And it is plain that Calvin in Amos 7. understood those times in which he writ to have given Supremacy to Kings and particularly to Henry the Eighth in this gross sense Whilst he complains thus Et hodiè quam multi sunt in Papatu qui Regibus accumulant quicquid possunt juris potestatis ita ut ne qua fiat disceptatio de religione sed potestas haec sit penes Regem unum ut Statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit sine controversiâ hoe firmum maneat Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt inconsiderati homines Dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me semper graviter vulneravit erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent ipsum summum caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Hoc certè fuit nimium Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat quia peccarunt inconsiderato zelo Sed impostor ille Stephen Gardiner qui postea fuit Cancellarius hujus Proserpinae quae hodiè illic superat omnes diabolos he means Queen Mary Ille cum esset Ratisponae non pugnabat rationibus loquor de hoc postremo Cancellario qui Episcopus fuit Vintoniensis sed quemadmodum jam caepi dicere non multum curabat Scripturae testimonia sed dicebat fnisse in arbitrio Regum Statuta abrogare ritus novos instituere Si de jejunio agitur illud regem posse populo indicere jubere ut hoc vel illo die vescatur populus carnibus licere etiam prohibene Sacerdotes a conjugio licere etiam regi interdicere populo usum calicis in caenâ licere regi statuere hoc vel illud in regno suo Quare Potestas enim summa est penes Regem He goes on complaining Certum quidem est Reges si fungantur suo officio esse Patronos Religionis nutricios Ecclesiae Hoc ergo summoperè requiritur a Regibus ut gladio quo praediti sunt utantur ad cultum Dei asserendum but of whom shall they learn the right cultus Dei Of the Body of Church-men Then what will become of Galvinisme Sed interea sunt homines inconsiderati such as Arch-Bishop Granmer and others qui faciunt illos nimis Spirituales Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germaniâ In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur amongst the Genevois and the Swisses nunc sentimus quales fructus nascantur ex illâ radice quod sic Principes quicunque potiuntur imperio putant se ita Spirituales esse ut nullum sit amplius Ecclesiasticium regimen Non putant se posse regnare nisi aboleant omnem Ecclesiae authoritatem sint summi Judices tam in doctrinâ quam in toto Spirituali regimine Tenendum est igitur temperamentum quia hic morbus semper in Principibus regnavit ut vellent inflectere religionem pro suo arbitrio libidine interea etiam pro suis commodis Hodiè dolendae sunt nobis nostrae vices deplorandae Thus he goes on complaining of the reforming Princes in those times making themselves the summi Judices both in Ecclesiastical Doctrines and Government Himself mean-while thus being destitute of any Judge at all in these matters the judgment of Seculars being by his sentence invalid of the Church opposing him To this of Calvin may be added what Dr. Fern saith in his Consid concerning Reform 2. c. 6. § That the Bishops and Clergy under Henry the Eighth may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denied to the Pope but in that part which they attributed to the King I add which part wrongly attributed to the King by consequence they faultily denied if not to the Pope yet to some other whose right it was And then I ask what person or persons this should be CHAP. IV. The Supremacy claimed by King Edward the Sixth § 38 NExt to come to the Times of Edward the Sixth Here we find the Power and Priviledges of the Kings Supremacy nothing diminished 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth but all those by Act of Parliament confirmed to Edward the Sixth which were formerly conceded to Henry the Eighth § 39 1. First Whereas there had been in former Ages several Parliament Statutes made in Confirmation of the Determinations of the Church and concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Bishops their Ordinaries As that Act 2. Hen. 4.15 That none shall preach hold teach or instruct contrary to the Catholick Faith or Determination of Holy Church and if any person shall offend in this kind that the Diocesan shall judicially proceed against him and that Act 2. Hen. 5.7 That for so much as the Cognizance of Heresy belongeth to the Judges of Holy Church and not to the Secular Judges such persons indited shall be delivered to the Ordinary of the Places to be acquitted or convicted by the Laws of Holy Church we find these Statutes repealed by King and Parliament 1. Edw. 6.12 c. And when-as they were again revived by Queen Mary 1 and 2. Mariae 6. c. with this Preface for the eschewing and avoiding of Heresies which of late have much increased within this Realm for that the Ordinaries have wanted authority to proceed against those that were infected therewith we find them again repealed as soon as Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown 1. Eliz. 1. c. the Tryal of Heresies and Hereticks by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy Church being admitted or excluded here according as the Prince was Catholick or Reformed § 40 Further we find it affirmed in the Act 1. Edw. 6.2 c. That all authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the Kings Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England Consequently in 1. Edw. 6.2 c. we find ordered That no Election be made of any Bishop by the Dean and Chapter but that the King by his Letters-Patents shall confer the same to any person whom he shall think meet and a Collation so made stand to the same effect as tho a Conge-d'-eslire had been given c. That all Processes Ecclesiastical shall be made in the name and with the stile of the King as in Writs at Common-Law and the Teste thereof shall be in the name of the Bishop These likewise to be sealed with no other Seal but the Kings or such as should be authorized by him Concerning which Act thus Dr. Heylin candidly Hist of Reform p. 51. By the last Branch thereof it is plain that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the Kings
Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates And of this Act such use was made tho possibly beyond the true intention of it that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below § 145. Which saith he being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which Estate they have continued without any legal interruption from that time to this Thus He. Now to go on Consequently we find in 2. Edw 6.1 c. the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer c therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. And in Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons who shall offend against this Act and Statute Which Clause by vertue of this Act and the like implies that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence or ought to excommunicate in all matters wherein the King and Parliament command it Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act forementioned p. 44. § 26. 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction there ascribed to the King or Queen involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication as well as others not for the King to exercise this himself but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute or not execute it so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King contrary to the Second and Third Thesis And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws may not correct what they judge Heresies Errors Vices c without the Kings consent had thereto See the Acts set down before § 31 32 33 c. it is but reasonable that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent for not obeying such Laws or for being thought guilty of such Crimes And this is the reason I suppose of Dr. Heylins Observation Hist of Reform p. 94. That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped that it was scarce able to fly abroad the Sentence of Excommunication wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward and of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England § 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3 and 4. Edw. 6.11 c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons half Seculars to be nominated by him as was done in Henry the Eighth's days in 35. Hen. 8.16 c. 27. Hen. 8.15 c. 25.19 c. who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church and these reformed Laws only established by a major part of them and published by the Kings Proclamation thence forward to stand in force The Statute runs thus Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal therefore you see the Statutes concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12 c. above-mentioned yet the same as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes having not of long time been put in ure nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted c that the Kings Majesty shall from henceforth during Three years have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy whereof Four to be Bishops and Sixteen of the Temporalty whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used and to gather order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought to his Majesty his said Council and them or the more part of them convenient to be used practiced or set forth within this his Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall by vertue of this present Act be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and no other Any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding § 42 Again we find in the same Act Six Prelates and Six others such as the King should nominate delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests and this devised by them and set forth under the Great Seal to be used and none other The words are these Forasmuch as that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties dominions some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests be it therefore Enacted that such Form as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law by the King to be appointed or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used and none other any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Here the King and Parliament assume power to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church and by their Delegates to constitute and by their sole Act to authorize new without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome and his Authority Power and Jurisdiction And I shall never consent nor
a Lay Vicar-General and p. 20 That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use than afterward in times well ballanced and established meaning those following times wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince And as for these days of King Edward what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people but the new Divines of Edward acknowledged and enstated in the King and Parliament may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper when in Prison sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary Episcopis Decanis wherein he cites them before the High Court of Parliament â—ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies i. e for so far as any man can be Judge In this Letter after having urged Deut. 17.8 because of the mention made there of a Judge besides the Priest Voâ— omnes saith he obtestor ut causam hanc vel aliam quamcunqne ob religionem ortam inter nos vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro excelso senatu sese religiosè animo submisso judicio authoritati Verbi Dei subjiciat Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat ut palam e. c lites inter nos componantur idque coram competenti judice Quid hoc est igitur Quo jure contenditis Vultis nostri causae nostrae testes accusatores judices esse Nos tantùm legem evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus ut coram competenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium Non vos fugit quomodo publicè palam in facie ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni in summâ curià Parliamenti veritas verbi Dei per fidos doctos pios ministros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit Quae quocunque titulo tempore universalitate splenduit ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari per proceres heroas ac doctos hujus regni erat mandatum statim evanuit c. Here that Bishop professeth when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion not the Synod but the Parliament the competent Judge therein and urgeth if I rightly understand him the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgment which as it was then affected would have cast him It seemeth Not by that he faith Tantum legem Dei in causâ religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him a Prisoner for this Controversy By the Clergy's No. By the Parliament's No for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter By the Scripture then its self But this is urged by both sides to speak for them and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament than it did before So that in nominating no other final Judge the Bishops Request here in summe is that his Cause may never be tryed by any Judge CHAP. V. King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary § 48 AFter King Edward's Death in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign a Princess otherwise principled The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Popes Supremacy re-acknowledged all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church in innovating the Forms of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments of Ordination of Church Rites and Discipline and Jurisdiction in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and composing new ones All was now by an equal Authority of Prince Clergy and State reversed repealed ejected and Religion only rendred much poorer as for Temporals put into the same course which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth before a new Wife or a new Title was by him thought on So that any new Reformation to come afterward must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure being now by the like Authority defaced and thrown down § 49 This Restitution of things made in Queen Mary's days will chiefly appear to you in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap where the ancient Form of Divine Service c used in Henry the Eighths days is restored as being the Service saith the Act which we and our Fore-fathers found in this Church of England left unto us by the Authority of the Catholick Church And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church and several Acts of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws c or introduced new Forms of Divine Service of Election and Ordination of Bishops and Priests are repealed And in 1 and 2. Mar. 6. chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Hereticks first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again and the Statutes to this purpose which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy are revived § 50 And in 1 and 2. Mar. 8. c where the Pope's Supremacy is re-acknowledged when also as Fox observes p. 1296. the Queen's Stile concerning Supremacy was changed and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted as also Bonner Bishop of London being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Arch-Bishop did omit in his Writs to the Clergy Authoritate Illustrissimae c legitime suffulttus In which Statute also the whole Nation by their Representative in Parliament ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism repealing the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's time against the Popes Supremacy and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy set down before § 22. and § 23 whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased to reform Errors Heresies c i e. to do the Offices of the Clergy In which Statute also the Clergy in a distinct Supplication beginning Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati c calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights Jurisdictions Liberties taken from her by the injustice of former times The words are Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus
where they could be secure of no breach in greater matters § 119 To η. Where concerniâ—g the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations To η. That the words urged out of the charge against Winchester prove not the Clergy's reception of or submission to all the Kings Injunctions touching the Reformation but only to the first Injunctions That whether they be extended to the first or to all they must be understood in some such sense as this That at that time when this charge against Winchester was drawn there were as yet none other known to the Council that did by open Protestation and Letters as it follows in that charge shew a wilful disobedience thereto c. Or else the verity of them will not consist with the story of those times which often signify a great opposition and averseness in many of the Clergy besides Winchester to the Kings proceedings in the alteration of Religion so far as that many were silenced suspended imprisoned ejected out of their Spiritual Preferments for this cause § 120 For evidencing which see first in Fox p. 1192. Bishop Bonner's protestation concerning these first Injunctions and Homilies when they were tendered unto him by the Commissioners which protestation was so far from being interpreted an obedient reception or reverent observance of them that for it he was sent to the Fleet. And what was done by Gardiner and Bonner leading Bishops that it was done also by many others I pray you review Mr. Fox's words before recited § 107 That for the most part the Bishops of Churches and Diocesses were changed which you may compare with what is said before § 107. of the many new Bishops made by King Edward That Learned Men were sent for out of forreign Countries surely not because the Leaders of the Universities were not so well studied see their Disputations but because not so conformable to the new prescriptions That of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward some to another where he names Bonner Gardiner Tonstal but might have mentioned also Heath Day Vesy that we know of And to the same purpose much-what speaketh Godwin p. 223. A. D. 1548 who after having commended Day and Tonstal for very learned Pre lates saith That the drift of the punishments of such men when in Henry's time they were accounted the chief Lights of our Church he conceives to have been that the rest of that Order might by their Example be admonished without dissimulation either to resign their Bishopricks to others that were thought by the present times more worthy or be induced by this terror to conform themselves to the present Reformation of the Church according to the prescript of the Laws in that behalf lately enacted i. e by Parliament Thus he But that the imprisonment of these or of some other Clergy as also that the dissent of many others to the Kings Injunctions who were not as yet imprisoned for it preceded the confirmation of these Injunctions by any Act of Parliament or Convocation appears from the very Act it self 2. Edw. 6.1 c. Where the Parliament desires of the King That all persons that have offended in the Premises i. e in refusing the Form of Common-Prayer or at least of the Mass Fox p. 1184 imposed by the King before this Act other than such person or persons as now be and remain saith the Act in the ward of the Tower of London or in the Fleet may be pardoned thereof Some Clergy therefore were imprisoned for this cause before this Act and more also had offended in this matter than those who were imprisoned whose pardon here was begged by the Parliament § 121 Which reluctance of the Clergy may be seen also in what Mr. Fox relateth p. 1184 who after he hath first told us how a new Form of Communion was agreed on by certain learned men appointed by the King which Form you must know was not allowed or seen by the first Parliament of King Edward which Parliament appointed Communion in both kinds indeed but this might have been observed without altering or adding one Syllable to the Mass and enjoined by the Council to be duly executed both by the Bishops and their subordinate Clergy thus complains Nevertheless saith he as at no time any thing can be so well done of the godly but that the wicked will find some means to deface the same so likewise at this present thro the perverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness of many inferiour Priests and Ministers of Cathedral and other Churches of this Realm there did arise a marvellous Schism and variety of fashions in celebrating the Common Service and administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church For some zealously allowing the Kings proceedings did gladly follow the order thereof and others though not so willingly admitting them did yet dissemblingly and patchingly use some part of them but many carelesly contemning all would still exercise their old wonted Popery i. e in other language would still retain the former solemn Church Service Thus He. Now this variety of fashions only mentioned by Fox if you desire more particularly to know we find a more punctual relation thereof in Parsons 3. Convers of England 2. Part 12. Chapter What a Babylonical confusion saith he in the two first years of the Kings Reign ensued upon these innovations in all Churches is wonderful to recount For some Priests said the Latine Mass some the English Communion some both some neither some half of the one half of the other This was very ordinary to say the Introitus Confiteor in English and then the Collects and some other parts in Latine after that again the Epistles and Gospels in English and then the Canon of the Mass in Latine and lastly the Benediction and last Gospel in English But that which was of more importance and impiety some did consecrate Bread and Wine others did not but would tell the people before-hand That they would not consecrate but restore them their Bread and Wine back again as they received it from them only adding to it the Church's benediction And those that did consecrate did consecrate in divers forms some aloud some in secret some in one form of words some in another And after Consecration some held up the Host to be adored after the old fashion and some did not and of those that were present some did kneel down and adore others did shut their eyes others turn away their faces others run out of the Church crving Idolatry Hitherto Parsons View also Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform p. 63.74 concerning this-matter Whereby we see how averse and unsatisfied divers of the Clergy were with the Kings alterations § 122 And this not only before his new Liturgy is said to be confirmed by Act of Parliament and Convocation but after also For afterward we find the King and his Council in their Letter to the Bishop of London Fox p. 1186. complaining That it
compulsion See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law saith she unless it be a late law of your own making for the altering matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the name of a Law both for c and for the partiality used in the same But I am well assured that the King his Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal c. Thus the Lady Mary An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my remembrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector Sec before §. â—04 That in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor he in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops I have here on purpose thrown together thus many testimonies to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations and to manifest the more how neither the Prelates except those new ones whom King Edward advanced nor the inferiour Clergy neither at first nor at last were so conforming to the Kings proceedings as is pretended out of the charge against Winchester That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received c. § 126 To θ. 1. To θ. First That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward we do not find that the major part of the Clergy in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth year of the Kings Reign is pretended to have consented to any of them save one namely the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in the second year of the King and that consent was also had after this Book was first passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament as may be gathered 1. Both by the Act which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men which were in all fourteen whereof seven Bishops two of which were Cranmer and Ridley but not any concurrence or authority of a Synod See Heylin Sect 5.7 3â— But had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament this which was more would rather have been mentioned than the other which was less and which Act also by vertue of it self see before § 40. not of arty Synodical Act confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book 2. And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward which was authoritate Regis Parliamenti as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Which stile differs much from either of these A Rege Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus i. e that it might be established by the Church's authority or Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi Parliamento propositus i. e that being established by the Church it might be enjoyned also under temporal punishments by the State Laws Neither do the words following in that Article see them recited before § 110. Express any authoritative ratification but only a single testimony of their judgment concerning those Forms or say any thing which any other person void of authority may not use Now of this consent of the Convocations An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first Common-Prayer-Book a chief motive besides fear of punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments Injunctions or Laws was as I conceive this because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church as likewise the later Common-Prayer-Book more omissions but no declaration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine of which I shall say more by and by And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have staid here See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable tho these omissions I excuse not as faultless or not offending against former Church-Canons But his Reformation proceeded much further to the condemning also of the Church's tenents and practice which cannot be shewed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government of which I shall speak hereafter But as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions from the paucity of the number of those who were imprisoned or ejected in comparison of the rest the argument is not good First Because many more might dissent and refuse obedience thereto then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it Might Nay did dissent for the Parliament beggeth their pardon see before § 120 and it is accounted a prudent policy of State where very many are guilty only to punish some of the chief for Example sake Secondly And again many more might be ejected or questioned for this than are by name mentioned in Fox or others and were so if you consider the testimonies before cited Thirdly But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected yet as where all the rest unanimously accord this restraint of a few changeth not the Church-affairs so when such a body is divided and all the rest are not of one mind this withdrawing of a few especially if these be the prime Leaders and the introducing of so many new voters who are of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting six new ones in their places may render that which was before a major and the more prevalent now a lesser and a weaker part and consequently if they be unjustly withdrawn will render the Act of this major part invalid § 127 Secondly 2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer c. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy inforcing as other Ecclesiastical Injunctions of the King so also the new Form of Communion before it was proposed to any Parliament or Convocation for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies that I may spare the taedium of repeating them But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-power had been removed from them touching which see their sad complaint before § 47 may be gathered 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Convocation the Six Articles and the the Necessary Doctrine 31. Hen. 8.14 c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days in the very beginning of which Arch-Bishop Cranmer called a Synod of them wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation but could not See
submitted-to by the Clergy as the King having the legislative power in these things by his Ecclesiastical Supremacy to be obeyed and submitted to by them upon penalties of suspension imprisonment deprivation c. and when upon this in the issue after some of the Clergy punished the rest do conform to the Kings commands Now which of these two were the proceedings of King Edward I refer the matter to the Story of those times and the testimonies above produced § 131 First And note here 1. That tho the whole Clergy should have submitted to such a Reformation yet cannot it be said to be their authentick Act at all or to be done but suffered by them as long as anothers command and force comes in especially where an after departure of a many of them shews us that their former compliance was feigned 2. That tho the submittance of the whole Clergy to such a Reformation had been ex animo and voluntary yet this rendereth not the former Imposition or Injunction of the King lawful or obligatory the lawfulness or unlawfulness of which cannot depend on an after casual event For I ask Suppose the Clergy generally had opposed them were these Injunctions justly imposed upon them by the King or not If not Then neither were they justly imposed tho the Clergy had consented because imposed before they consented whose consent is held necessary that they may be justly imposed But if justly imposed then why is the Clergy's consent or reception of such Injunctions at all urged here to justify them Suppose a Prince should first decide some Theological Controversy and then require submission thereto just on the same side affirmatively or negatively as a Synod of the Clergy would have done both these yet thus he taketh their office not rightly tho he manageth it not amiss And such Act will not be allowable because to the justifying of an action two things are requisite That the thing be right which is done That the person have lawful authority to do it § 132 3. That the King or State never sought for or pretended the Synods consent as authoritative to make the Kings or their Ecclesiastical Injunctions lawful or obligatory but required the duty of their obedience to these Acts of the Kings Supremacy which Supremacy was confirmed both by the Clergy's Recognition and Oath Which thing is sufficiently manifested in that many of the Kings Ecclesiastical Injunctions were set forth and did exact the Clergy's obedience to them before any Synods consent given or asked and when it was yet uncertain whether a major part would approve or condemn them But if you desire further evidence thereof I refer you to the matter delivered before In § 40 41. where you may see the Parliament Acts establishing such Laws without pretending or involving any Synodal authority nay giving authority by vertue of such Act to the Clergy to execute such Laws and In § 45 where you may see why it was necessary according to their principles that they should do so and In § 45 where you may see the obedience thought due in these matters to the regal Supremacy and the edicts issuing from it required to be subscribed by Winchester and In § 47 where you may see the description of the exauctorated State of the Clergy in those times and In § 103 where you may see the usual stile of Henry the Eighth whose Supremacy was no way remitted by his Son and In § 107. c. and § 113. the practice of Edward the Sixth which yet will be further declared in the following instances of his Supremacy W hen therefore the consent of Synod or Convocation is urged to the people or to some single person by the King or his Council it is not urged as an authority see the reason § 45. which these as subject to their decrees ought to obey but as an example which these as less knowing ought to follow But if the bare mentioning sometimes of the Clergy's consent argues this then thought necessary to the establishing of such decrees then would the mentioning of the consent of Parliament argue as much which is urged together with that of the Clergy and so no Ecclesiastical Acts of the King and Clergy would be obligatory unless confirmed by Parliament But this will destroy the authority of the 42 Articles made in the fifth year of King Edward ratified by no Parliament § 133 To λ To λ the Answer is prepared out of what hath been already said to θ. That before there had been any force used upon the Clergy a Reformation was endeavoured in a Synod by Arch-Bishop Cranmer but repelled That the vote of a Convocation after such violences first used after Clergy restrained or changed is not to be reckoned free That the major part only outwardly complyed for fear as is confessed by Protestants and seen both in their former decrees under King Henry and in their suddain recidivation I mean the Clergy not introduced by King Edward under Queen Mary That this consent of Convocation can only be urged for the Common-Prayer-Book but not for other parts of the Reformation which new Form of Common-Prayer omitted rather than gain-said the former Church-tenents and practice and these omissions not so many in the former Book of King Edward as in the latter That this consent of Convocation is not urged in the places cited as necessary to make the King and Parliaments Church-Constitutions valid but as exemplary to make others more conformable to them That the Bishops that framed this new Form of publick Service were but seven whereof those who survived till Queen Mary's time except Cranmer and Ridley returned to the Mass § 134 To μ. To μ. First Whether there was indeed any such Synodal Act as is here pretended in the times of King Edward shall be examined hereafter But Secondly Supposing for the present that there was so I answer besides that which is said in the Reply to λ and θ appliable to this That by this time the Clergy was much changed according to Mr. Fox's description made thereof before § 107 a many new Bishops introduced by King Edward several old ones displaced so that now after the State 's five years reforming Church-work to use Dr. Heylin's Phrase might more securely be committed to Church-men Yet that many also then for fear of the times either absented themselves from this Synod or in the Synod were guilty of much dissimulation as appears by their contrary votes soon after in the beginning of Queen Mary See before § 51. § 135 To ν. To ν. I answer That if such Synodal Acts were of the right Clergy and their Acts voluntary and unforced the Reformation here in England from the time of such Synods was as to this authority regular and canonical till reversed by the like authority But then this Reformation as it is supposed to be made by the Clergy is void upon another account viz. as being contrary to the former definitions
and form save that he shall bless and consecrate the biggest Chalice or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of Wine with some water put unto it and that day not drink it up all himself but taking one only sup or draught leave the rest upon the Altar covered and thus exhort the people Dearly beloved c. Thus the Rubrick And this Form as Mr. Fox goes on exhabited unto the King was by his Majesty's Council particularly sent to every Bishop of the Realm requiring and commanding them by their Letters on the Kings Majesty's behalf that they should forthwith have diligent respect to the due execution thereof c. In which Letter the motive urged by the Council why this new Form was drawn up and imposed is That the Statute of the former Parliament ordering that the Sacrament should be distributed unto the people in both kinds might be well executed in such sort as is agreeable with the word of God as if for the distribution of the Sacrament in both kinds there was any need of altering or superadding any thing to the Mass when as with that same Form of the Mass it was in the publick Communions for many Centuries only so distributed and when as that same Form of the Mass is urged by Protestants as contrary to communicating the people only in one kind but the true cause of altering it I shall shew you by and by Now this new Form was thus imposed by the King and his Council before allowed by any Synod of the Clergy or Act of Parliament which were procured afterward in the second Parliament of King Edward Meanwhile such alterations in King Edward's time about the Doctrine and the Administration of this Sacrament as they were uncanonical so they were in this respect also very hurtful in that they occasioned in the ignorant especially much profaneness and irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament in those days as you may partly also gather from an Act 1. Edw. 6.1 c. made against such irreverent speaking against it For whereas the Sacrament was according to ancient custome delivered to each Communicant in a small round Wafer hence they gave it the name of Round-Robin And because the parts thereof that were reserved to be carried to the sick were hanged up over the Altar in a Pix or Box they named it Jack in a Box and instead of the Sacrament of the Altar called it the Sacrament of the Halter See Heylin's Hist of Reform 49.63 Such profaneness followed the remedy of what they called Superstition § 145 Secondly 2. Of Ordination See 3 4. Edw. 6.10 c. Having likewise condemned amongst other superstitious Books the former Church-form of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops and Priests the King caused a new Form to be prescribed upon this pretence in the Act of Parliament That so concord and unity might be had within his Majesty's dominions in these Ordinations But could not this have been done without innovation by strictly confining all to the use of the former Church form or if these were various to some one of them Stat. 3 4. Edw. 6.12 c. Now for the compiling of this new Form the Parliament orders That such as by fix Prelates See before §. 42. and six others to be appointed by the King or by the major part of them should be devised for that purpose and set forth under the great Seal should by vertue of their Act without obtaining or requiring any ratification thereof from any Synod be lawfully used and none other any law or prescription to the contrary thereof notwithstanding In which new Form amongst other things which were in the former now cast out this is one to the great contradiction of all Antiquity The Bishops conferring on the ordained Presbyters potestatem offerendi sacrificium propriè dictum verè propitiatorium see in what sense understood and explained by the Church in Discourse of the Eucharist § 251. c Deo Missasque celcbrandi tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis Quod omnem superat impietatem saith Mason de Minist p. 242. 17. c. And this is another The Oath of Submission of the Ordained or Consecrated to the Supremacy of the Patriarch instead of which is prescribed another Oath to the Supremacy of the Temporal Prince From which Regal Supremacy also we find Cranmer after fifteen years governing the Province of Canterbury receiving at the coming in of a new Sovereign a new Licence of ordaining Bishops and Priests therein durante Beneplacito Regis The Form as Sanders p. 170. hath set it down runs thus Quandoquidem omnis jurisdicendi authoritas atque etiam jurisdictio omnimoda tam illa quae ecclesiastica dicitur quam seecularis a Regia petestate velut a supremo capite manta c. Ad ordinandum igitur quoscunque intra Diaecesim tuam Cantuariensem ad omnes etiam sacros Presbyteratus ordines promovendum per praesentes ad nostrum beneplacitum duraturos tibi damus potestatem And some such thing is intimated by Mr. Prin unbishoping of Timothy p. 80. I must inform our Bishops saith he for their Learning that all the Bishops in King Edward the Sixth's time had special clauses in their Letters Patents authorizing them to ordain Ministers and Deacons as Bishop Poynet's Scory's Coverdale's Patents 5. Edw. 6. pars 1. testify at large and there is no wonder in this if you recall to mind Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Answers to the Queries made concerning these matters recited before § 105. n. 3. Which Patents if they imply such a Supremacy Ecclesiastical in the Prince as that he may if he please prohibit any Ecclesiastical person at all from ordaining Ministers in his dominions are contrary to the first Thesis above § 2. But yet this new Ordinal was not so well purified from former Superstitions See in Fox p. 1366. the Kings and Earl of War wick's Letters but that some who were presented to Bishopricks were stumbled therewith and the Kings dispensation was obtained in order to the consecrating of Bishop Hooper for his not observing of some things therein and particularly for his not taking the new Oath either that of obedience to the Arch-Bishop or that of the Kings Supremacy which perhaps he lately seasoned abroad with Calvin's Doctrine See before §. 37 could not so easily digest § 146 Thirdly 3◠of Common Prayer Not long after the production of the new Form in administring the Communion in the second year of his Reign he caused it to be reviewed and also then to be drawn up a new Form of Common Prayer for Mattins and Evensong and the Administration of the other Sacraments of the Church if I may use the phrase of the Act 2. Edw. 6.1 c. which Form composed by seven Bishops and seven other learned men of the Clergy chosen by the King yet one of them Day Bishop of Chicester after it was done refused to subscribe it who was afterward also turned out of his
before § 65. and caused Arch-Bishop Whitgift to exact of all those that entred into the Clergy a Subscription that they would use it and no other Form Cambd Eliz. An. Dom. 1583. Ecclesiastical Can. 36. Which Subscription the party that opposed this Book at last prevailing was remitted by the Parliament 1640 and since that I need not tell you what it hath suffered The old Form supplanted the Mass the pew Form the old and then the old one being raised again out of its ashes in the new Scotch Liturgy which began all the troubles had almost brought in the late tumults a fatal overthrow both upon the new one and upon it self Thus much from § 143. concerning this Kings new Liturgies § 164 By vertue of such a Supremacy the King conceiving he had power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws In the abrogatio of several Ecclesiastical law coâ—â—eâ—ning Fastâ— Câ—lâ—bacy of the Cleâ—gy c. tho established by former superior Councils appointed the Parliament assenting thereto eight persons amongst whom were two Bishops Crannier and Thirlby and Peter Martyr to prepare this work Who drew up a body of them which was then made publick and since reprinted 1640. But indeed it appeareth not that this Reformation of them was ever ratified by King Parliament or Convocation See the Preface to Reform Leg. Eccl. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliaments authority and dispensed with whom he thought fit for not observing them See Stat. 2 3. Edw. 19. chap. Wherein after a Preface declaring That the Kings Subjects now had a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel and true word of God shewed declared and opened thro the mercy of God by the hands of the Kings Majesty and his most noble Father and thereby perceived that one day or meat of it self is not more holy more pure or more clean than another c. as if the former Church which they left had taught them otherwise after this Preface I say the King with the consent of Parliament first ordains That all manner of Statutes Laws and Constitutions concerning any manner of fasting or abstinence from any kinds of meats shall from the first of May next ensuing loose their force and strength and be void and of none effect Then sets down the days upon which he will have abstinence from flesh observed upon the Penalty of paying Ten Shillings and suffering ten days Imprisonment except those who being not enfeebled with age or sickness shall receive a licence to eat flesh from the King or his Successors For you must know that the maker of a Law hath power to dispense with it But here note that only abstinence from flesh is enjoyned on those days by this Statute not Fasting nor is Fasting enjoyned by any other Statute that I can find save only on Holy-day-Eves by a Statute made two or three years after Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.3 â— Neither is there any obligation for the observation of either fasting or abstinence on these days by any express Canon of this Church reformed when as now the former Church-Laws concerning this were by the Kings Supremacy nulled in this Act but only by Act of Parliament and the end of such abstinence in the Parliament Act 5. Eliz. 5. c. professed to be only upon a Politick consideration the increase of Fishermen and Mariners c. And not for any Superstition saith that Act to be maintained in the choice of meats or as if such forbearing of flesh were of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be Tho King Edward in the fore-cited Statute I confess mentions partly another end viz. because that due and godly abstinence is a means to vertue and to subdue mens bodies to their Soul and Spirit And I doubt not that many devout persons in this Church holding themselves bounden to the former Ecclesiastical Constitutions notwithstanding the Kings abrogation have still observed this duty in obedience thereto See likewise 5 6. Edw. 6. 3. c. the same Regal authority appointing the Holy-days And these things are done in Parliament without the least mentioning or referring to any Synod § 165 Likewise by vertue of such Supremacy the King with consent of Parliament ordained Staâ— 2 3. Edw 6.21 c. That all Laws positive Canons Constitutions heretofore made by man only which prohibit Marriage to any Spiritual Person who by Gods Law may lawfully marry shall be utterly void and of none effect and this upon consideration as it is in the Preface of the same Act of such uncleanness of living and other great inconveniences which have followed of compelled chastity as if the Church compelled any person to such chastity except hypothetically if he will take on him such a profession Or as if in this the Church enjoyned any thing which she first stated not to be in every ones power to observe if using a just endeavour Now whereas it is said in 5.6 Edw. 6.12 That the slanderous reproach of holy Matrimony i. e. of Priests doth redound to the dishonour of the Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same Marriage of Clergy to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by their common assent as by the subscription of their hands Such assent as likewise that which they say to the same purpose in the 42 Articles Art 31. no way opposeth the Law of the Church For things most lawful by Gods Law as Marriage of the Clergy is by the Church allowed to be yet may be lawfully prohibited by the Church Whose Law in this matter the Clergy of this land justified in the third and fourth of the Six Articles Neither if they had here opposed it as they do not would their sentence be of any force because contrary to the Constitution of former superiour Councils § 166 By vertue of such Supremacy the King in the Sixth year of his Reign published by his authority 42 Articles of Religion containing several matters of Faith Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion dâ—fferent from the foâ—mer dectâ—â—â—eâ— of the Church which are there stated contrary to the definitions of former superiour Councils Which Articles are said indeed to have been first decreed and agreed on by a Synod of the Clergy held at London the Title presixed to them being this Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. Dom. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat regiâ authoritate in lucem editi But this I cannot thus easily concede Where whether these Articles were passed by any Synod notwithstanding this Title Thus far indeed I grant that they seem to be compiled or consented to by some members of
convenit inter Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clerum universum or the like Next you may observe that tho the Prolocutor in the Synod 1º Mariae questioneth and Philpot answereth concerning the Catechisme why it should be published in the name of the Synod yet they both speak not of the Catechisme taken by it self but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of this Catechisme and bound up with it which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechisme and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation and so also calleth them the Catechisme because the first title of this Book is Catechismus brevis c. Now that they must speak of the Articles is plain because the Catechisme as taken by it self is not at all entitled to the Synod but only the Articles at the end thereof The Title of the Catechisme is only this Catechismus brevis Christianae disciplinae summam continens omnibus Ludimagistris authoritate regiâ commendatus Neither do those words in Philpot's Answer that the house had committed their Synodal authority to certain persons to be appointed by the King to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient c. agree at all to this Catechisme but to the Articles only For this Catechisme was made before by a private person that is by the Arch-bishop if we may believe his own confession related above and afterward approved only by some Bishops and other eruditi viri as the King saith in the Preface thereof Cum brevis explicata Catechismi ratio a pio quodam erudito viro conscripta nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur ejus diligentem inquisitionem quibusdam episcopis aliis eruditis commisimus quorum judicium magnam apud nos authoritatem habet quia conveniens cum scripturis c. visa est placuit non solum eum in aspectum lucemque proferre sed etiam propter perspicuitatem omnibus ludorum magistris ad docendum proponere c. Neither is this Catechisme abstracted from the Articles any such pestiferous Book or so full of Heresies as the Prolocutor complains of being composed in general terms for School-boys and not stating scarce touching any controversy Add to this that tho the Catechisme was not made by the Synod yet if the 42 Articles that were then printed and bound with the Catechisme were framed by it neither had the Prolocutor any reason to have fallen upon and gotten hands against the Catechisme as being falsly ascribed to that Reverend Assembly when as that which was far more opposite to that which he accounted the Orthodox Religion namely these Articles were known to be passed by them Neither would Philpot have concealed this matter since this known Act of the Synod composing these Articles would have justified that Act of the Delegates composing the Catechisme for the Doctrine of the Catechisme is contained in the Articles But if by this Catechisme both the Prolocutor and Philpot meant the Articles at the end thereof as it cannot be otherwise then Philpot hath revealed to us all the truth concerning the composing or ratifying of them and why in the impression they were ascribed to the Synod Namely because the Synod had given authority to those the King should nominate to make Ecclesiastical Laws and so by those persons being Episcopi alii eruditi viri were these Articles compiled or confirmed the Synod it seems leaving both this matter and the election of the persons for doing of it to the Kings care without reserving any review thereof to themselves contrary to the First Second and Sixth Theses But Mr. Philpot discovers the motive which this Synod if he meant this and not some former Synod might have to do this when he mentions a former Act of Parliament 3 4. Edw. 6.11 c. enstating the King in this power which Act was made two years before the Session of this Synod but then this is somewhat strange that what was acknowledged formerly as the Kings right is now made by Mr. Philpot the Clergy's concession to him Thus then were these Articles made not by but after the Synod and this is the reason why tho the production of such a Body of Articles would have been by much the solemnest Act of a Synod that was done in King Edward's days yet both the Records and the Historians Fox Godwin Antiquitates Britanicae and those others that I have seen are silent therein And the Arch-bishop to whom it would have been an excellent defence to have shewed them tho of his compiling yet to have been confirmed and generally subscribed by such a full Synod yet he also pleads no such thing And hence we may learn the reason of that which Dr. Heylin observeth p. 25. That tho a Parliament was held at this very time and that this Parliament had passed several Acts which concerned Church-matters as an Act for Vniformity of Divine Service and for the Confirmation of the Book of Ordination 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. An Act declaring which days shall only be kept for Holy-days and which for Fasting-days 3. c. An Act against striking or drawing any weapon in the Church or Church-yard 4. c. An Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests 12. c. Yet neither in this Parliament saith he nor in that which followed is there so much as the least Syllable which reflecteth this way or medleth any thing at all with the Book of Articles Thus Dr. Heylin Which Observation as to him it affords an Argument that Religion reformed in these Articles therefore can be called no Parliament-Religion so to me that it was also no Synodal-Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating or rather preventing the Synod in all other Transactions about the Reformation See before § 47. Neither can it be said improper to the Parliament to enjoyn obedience to these as well as it had done to other Church or Synod-decrees § 170 If it be urged here what Philpot urged of the Catechisme that these Articles are Synodical because the Synod conceded to the King the election of such persons who should frame and publish these Articles without any communicating them first to the Synod See the Answer returned to this before § 42. CHAP. XI The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical Affairs And of the unlawful Ejection of the Catholicks § 171 HAving thus from § 104. viewed the course of the Reformation under King Edward 3. The Acting of Qu. Elâ—z in Ecclesiastical matters now I pass to that under Queen Elizabeth one much interessed to renew an opposition to the Pope in as much as his pronouncing King Henry's Marriage with Anne Bullen her Mother unlawful invalidated her Title to the Crown Upon which Mary the Queen of Scots a Catholick All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and Edw. days being reversed by the Clergy iâ— Q. Mary's dâ—ys newly married to the Daulphin of France and animated by the
profess the contrary nay will say that the succession of the Clergy shall keep teach and maintain our Lord's laws to the end of the world This question he asketh not he solveth not as writing against the Presbyterians who will not ask it him But what can he say Shall the Clergy judge They deny it to be the Lord's law what he against their consent would restore Shall the Prince judge But this is most unreasonable that the judgment of a Laick shall be preferred before the whole succession of the Clergy in Spiritual manters And what mischief will come hereupon if he judge amiss And here let me set before him his own rules Right of Chur. 4. c. p. 235. Such a difference falling out saith he i. e. between the secular power and the Bishops so that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right as how can it be clear to particular persons which is not to their guides in those matters and which is not to other particular persons who also think the contrary clear it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns But if this his answer that the Prince may suppress the Apostolical power of the Clergy when this goeth against other our Lords or the Apostles Laws be unsatisfying to the great difficulty he proposeth I know not what other can possibly be returned to that his objection And I wonder that this considerative man who holds not the Pope to be Anti-Christ or the Hierarchy of the Church to be the followers of Anti-Christ should make such a supposition as this that the Apostolical Succession of the Clergy should oppose our Lords or the Apostles laws so far as that we shall depend on the Laity to restore them and to protect Christianity against their Guides § 205 The fifth is Dr. Heylin Whose testimonies justifying King Edward and Queen Elizabeth's reforming by their own sole authority Of Doctor Heylin or only with the advice of some few of their Clergy where they perceived that the rest would not comply See before § 129. Yet this their reforming I have shewed to have been for some part of it in matters of Doctrine and Faith To which former testimonies I will add here Reform Jâ—stisted p. 86. 1. First what he saith concerning the Clergy's not having any lawful power to conclude any thing in Spiritual matters that may bind King or Subject till the Royal authority confirmeth it contrary to the first Thesis It is true saith he the Clergy in their Convocation can do nothing now but as their doings are confirmed by the Kings authority And I conclude it stands with reason that it should be so For since the two Houses of Parliament can conclude nothing which may bind either King or Subject in their civil rights until they be made good by the royal assent so neither is it fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters what not in such as Prince and People grant to intrench upon no civil Right until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them What if such supreme Governor be an Heretick an Arrian an Anabaptist c Ib. p. 84.2 2. What he saith concerning the King of England's having lawful power to act without his Clergy as the Clergy having conferred on him all their power which they formerly enjoyed in their own capacity Which was Philpot's Plea recited before § 168. contrary to the Second Thesis The Kings of England saith he had a further right as to this particular which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of recognition or concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme authority not only of confirming their Synodal Acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which firmly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this To reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel case in the Roman Empire in which the supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they called Lex Regia they transferred all their power on Caesar and the following Emperors Which Law being passed the Edicts of the Emperor were as binding as the Senatus-consulta had been before Whence came that memorable Maxime in Justinians Institutes Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for the Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after following they transferred that power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the power of the Convocation so was it as good in law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it And tho in most of their proceedings toward Reformation the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them or could assemble without trouble yet was there no necessity that all or the greatest part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose no more than it was anciently for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church or for the godly Kings of Judah to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Levites before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses which were crept in amongst them Thus Dr. Heylin p. 84. § 206 Indeed elsewhere he seemeth to put some limitations to the Prince's acting in such matters without or against their Clergy but then these limitations are such as that the reforming Prince's acts have transgressed his Rules To this purpose he saith p. 80 81. That whereas Reformation may be first in corruption of manners or abuses in Government secondly in matters practical thirdly in points of Doctrine 1. First That if the things to be reformed be either corruptions in manners or neglect of publick duties to Almighty God be abuses either in Government or in the parties governing the King may reform this himself by his sole authority tho the whole body of the Clergy or the greatest part thereof should oppose him in it 2. That if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church the King consulting with so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Clergy as he thinks fit to call
detect them Should I give a complete Catalogue of 'em I should out-swell the bulk of Church-Government but I consider that every one who desires to know this Author may not be willing to be charg'd with a Volume I shall therefore confine my self to such only as are worthy of this Writer and beyond the aim of a common Undertaker A Reply to Chapter the 2d. IT Might inquir'd why this Author dates the Reformation from the days of King Henry since the Principal Actors in those times were such as the Smithfield-Protestants had no reason to think Reformers I might therefore wave the three a Chapters 2d. 3d. 7th Chapters that concern that Reign were I not by the justness of an Answer oblig'd to my Author's method But before I enter upon this subject I would acquaint the Reader once for all that the glory of these Fables is owing to the Pen of the inimitable Sanders Who was so great a Master of Invention that no Ingenuous Author would have condescended to transcribe him He does not however pay such an implicit deference to the establish'd Character of that great Original but that he dares refine upon those Strokes which seem'd incapable of improvement That he may give us a tast of what we are to expect in the body of his History he entertains us in the first entrance into it with a false and groundless aspersion of the Marriage of King Henry with Ann Bullen Sanders for the deeper blackening of Q Elizabeth tell 's his Readers that King Henry before his Marriage with Ann Bullen had known her Sister and her Mother and that she was his Natural Daughter This he affirms with an air of Autority without offer of proof as became one who addrest himself to a Spanish Reader but our Author who could not expect so great a resignation of Reason presents this Calumny in a better dress and suborns Parliaments and Popes to support it The King § 17 he saith was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7 c. never after repeal'd plainly declar'd her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown and of which those words in the Dispensation procur'd from Clement the seventh Etiamsi illa tibi alias secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis aut primo affinitatis gradu etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit do give some suspicion If ever Sanders's Title was endanger'd this Period shakes it for certainly never was Assurance so perfect in Idea as that of this Author Who in a knowing age Protestant Country and Learned University to prove that the King was conscious of some Impediments very calmly refers us to a a Albeit those Acts concerning the ratification of the King's Marriage with the Lady Ann Bolen were then made as it was thent hought by Your Majesty Nobles and Commons upon a pure perfect and clear foundation thinking the said Marriage then had between Your Highness and the said Lady Ann in their Consciences to have been pure sincere perfect and good and so was reputed accepted and taken in the Realm till now of late that God hath caus'd to be brought to light certain just true and lawful Impediments unknown at the making of the said Acts Albeit that Your Majesty not knowing of any lawful Impediments entred into the bonds of the said unlawful Marriage c. 28. Hen. 8. c. 7. Pultous Coll. Lond. 1632. Statute which in express words saith that the King knew not of any Impediments The Act doth as any one may see mention some Impediments for which the Marriage is declar'd unlawful but withal plainly saith they were unknown to the King and then how could they be such as this Author from this Statute would have us understand This Act of illegitimating Elizabeth he saith was never after repeal'd From which I gather that our Author is much-what of the same Opinion as to Q. Elizabeth's Legitimacy with his Brother the Author of the late Test tho' it seems he is better bred than to use his expression But I cannot think that one whose Circumstances have made it so much his concern to consult the Statute-book could be ignorant of the Repeal of this Act and therefore am of Opinion that this Clause was inserted only that he might throughout observe a Decorum and maintain his Character Not to mention the 35 of Hen. 8. c. 1. which provides for the Succession of the L. Elizabeth I desire the Reader to cast his Eye on the Margin a There is nothing which We Your Subjects for our parties can may or ought more firmly entiredly and assuredly in the purity of our hearts think or with our mouths declare and confess to be true then that Your Majesty our Sovereign Lady is and in very deed and of most meer right ought to be by the Law of God and the Laws and Statutes of this Realm our most rightful and lawful Sovereign Liege Lady and Queen and that Your Majesty is rightly lineally and lawfully descended and come of the blood Royal of this Kingdom in and to whose Princely person without all doubt ambiguity scruples or question the Imperial Estate of this Realm is invested For which Causes we Your said Subjects as thereunto constrain'd by the Laws of God and Man can no less do then humbly beseech Your Majestie that it be enacted c. And that all Sentences Judgments and Decrees had made declared set forth published and promulged and also as much of every Clause Article Branch Matter or thing contained or exprest in any Act or Acts of Parliament as be in any thing repugnant contrary or derogatorie to this our said Declaration c. shall be utterly frustrate void and of none effect and also shall and may be cancel'd defac'd and put in perpetual Oblivion c. 1st Eliz. c. 3. where he will find the Act of Illegitimacy repeal'd in Expressions so full and vigorous that it is hard to imagine what could tempt our Author to so extravagant an Assertion but the ambition of exceeding all Examples But the citing of an Act which when consulted proves the contradictory of that for which it was refer'd to and the denying the Repeal of a Statute which is abrogated in as plain words as possible do not furnish Matter enough for a Parenthesis with this Author To close it therefore a passage is cited from a Dispensation which he has procur'd from Clement the seventh Since he urges us with this Dispensation it is to be hop'd that he esteems it genuine If so we have met with a Bull wherein the Marriage betwixt King Henry and Katherine is declar'd null and invalid But he who in this Paragraph cites a passage from Pope Clement's Bull of Divorce will in the next Paragraph but one § 19 shew us that the Pope was not singular in his Judgment when he refus'd to grant such a Bull. It is indeed certain
need to meddle with any other since We never did own the Autority of any but what were so establish'd I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph §. 25.26 because what is said there is unsaid in the 26th But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark He supposes that Gardiner retracted his acknowledgment of a Regal Supremacy for this reason because by sad experience he saw it much enlarg'd beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintain'd it just § 46 But else-where this same Author will suppose that Gardiner was ensnar'd in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's and this Sense which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure § 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarg'd In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been perform'd in this Chapter We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanc'd then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme promis'd to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent and requested that the Old ones might be Reform'd The rest of his Discourse is only flourish which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been compriz'd in fewer Words and this would have heightned our Esteem of the Author tho' it might have deprest the price of the Pamphlet A Reply to his 3d Chapter § 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament Repeal'd and not Repeal'd make no difference with him All the Expressions which seem to extend the Supremacy are invidiously rak'd together and those which limit it craftily supprest The Statutes are put upon the rack and because the Text doth not speak plain enough our Author has added his Gloss He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction but restor'd the Old nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy who certainly did not delude the King with the Complement of an empty Title The extent of this Jurisdiction annex'd to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction here ascrib'd to the Prince might have been spar'd if he had attended to an easie distinction frequently met with in our Writers They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience or External that which is practis'd in exterior Courts That proceeds by Spiritual Censures this by force and corporal Punishments That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme and from him deriv'd to Ecclesiastic Governours Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annex'd to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum tho' what is urg'd thence needs no Reply that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church § 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but the Clergy too Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign Every Government has a right to dispence with it's own Acts and nothing farther is challeng'd in that Statute No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom but from the Legislative power of the Realm and the same power which gave them life might dispense with them This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesom Acts made in King Henry's Reign but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince but his Ancient Right for some Years indeed usurp'd by the Pope but now vindicated This is the true import of that Statute which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope to whom it never rightly belonged but not from the Clergy it being expresly provided in the Act that all Licenses be granted by the Arch-Bishop or 2 Spiritual Persons In case of the Arch-Bishop's refusal the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis it ought the rather to be excus'd since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observ'd that that Thesis is contrary to it self His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law this Act I am sure whence he infers it positively asserts the King to be Supreme § 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirm'd by the Patriarch is taken away The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome otherwise cal'd the Pope to or for the office of Bishop or Arch-Bishop of this Realm But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as ow no Subjection to any Patriarch and therefore have no necessity of being confirm'd by him Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity for it supposes none The King's Presentation to a Bishoprick against which he is so warm was no new Usurpation but an ancient Right had he liv'd some Centuries before the Reformation he would have had this Grievance to complain of The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated but for the Reader 's mortification The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv p. 65. as in it The said Arch-Bishop when no Arch-Bishop had been mention'd before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period
The Act here descanted upon expir'd with King Henry and it will be time enough to consider it when it is reviv'd again If Prohibition of appeals to Rome and making the King the last Appellee be an Act of the Reformation § 33 it has been prov'd that King Henry the 2d and all his Bishops except Becket were Reformers § 34 Some Acts of Parliament are cited in the 34th Paragraph which were repeal'd by King Edward and yet make up part of that accumulative charge which is laid on the Reformation Even the Six Articles are urg'd which drain'd the blood of so many Reformers But the Protestants in justifying the King's Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching any thing contrary to the six Articles c. That is all those who own an Autority must justify the abuse of it They who obey the just Commands of their Prince must obey him when he commands what is unjust Father Walsh acknowledges I suppose the Pope's Supremacy but he thinks himself severely dealt with when he is censur'd for not being a Rebel Having quoted several Acts he comes to reflect upon them a little viz. for six Pages First he copes with Arch Bishop Bramhal but I should be unjust to that Prelate's memory if in so unequal an engagement I should think he wanted my Assistance What is said by the Bishop is not said only but demonstrated This Author has urg'd nothing against him but what he might have fetch'd from the Bishop's own Confutation of Serjeant The Question here discust has already been debated in the a p. 20. Animadversions and if the Reader desires to be farther satisfied I cannot more oblige him then by sending him to the Most Reverend and Learned Author He will find there a just and solid Vindication of a Noble Cause which suffers when it falls into weak management and is made part of an Occasional Pamphlet Having catechiz'd the Bishop he next canvaseth that Statute of much concernment that the King shall have power from time to time to Visit Repress and Reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spiritual Autority lawfully may be Reform'd But this Act will be without the reach of our Author's cavils if it be observ'd That the Power by which the King Visits and Reforms is not Spiritual but Political That a Power is not given him to declare Errors but to repress them that the determination of Heresie is by Act of Parliament limited to the Autority of Scriptures 4 first General Councils and assent of the Clergy in their Convocation that the King hath not all the Power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Autority may be lawfully exercis'd for he has not the power of the Keys but a power given him to reform all Heresies by Civil Authority which the Church can do by her Spiritual That it is impossible it should be prov'd that this power of Visiting and Reforming is a necessary Invasion of the Office of Spiritual Pastors because when the Prince doth it by them commanding them to do the Work and exacting of them a discharge of their duty He doth this without Usurping their Office and yet doth it by a power distinct from and independent on their's And lastly that the Prince is oblig'd to take care that all Acts of reforming be executed by their proper Ministers because else he transgresses the Power prescrib'd in this Statute so to reform Errors as may be most to the pleasure of Almighty God The Application is obvious and will satisfie the Reader that our Author must part with a whole Paragraph if He will as he pretends §. 35. n. 4. remove the Mis-interpretation of this Act. § 36 The next Paragraph makes remarks upon a Proclamation and speech of King Henry's and some words of Cromwel which were very justifiable if it were either necessary that we must defend them or the Defence not obvious to every one who thinks His Conclusion of this Chapter amounts to no more then that Bishop Gardiner was too great a Courtier and Calvin too credulous § 37 One was gross in his sense of the Supremacy and the other zealous against it so misrepresented Which will then begin to be pertinent when it is prov'd that Gardiner was a Protestant and Calvin a son of the Church of England There is so little in this Chapter which affects the Reformation that it cannot be worth recapitulating A Reply to Chapter the 4th § 38 NOW he comes to the times of Edward the 6th Now then he first begins to remember the Title of his Book Here he finds all the Supremacy confirm'd to Edward the Sixth which was formerly conceded to Henry the 8th And yet the Reformers are accus'd of Innovation for continuing what they found establish'd by Roman-Catholics he complains of the Repeal of several Statutes made in confirmation of the Determinations of the Church § 39 But by the Church is meant the Church of Rome and it is no great Crime in a Reforming Prince that he did not think himself oblig'd to punish with Death all her Determinations These Statutes now repeal'd were reviv'd by Q. Mary and again repeal'd by Q. Elizabeth Which amounts to no more then that Q. Mary was a Roman-Catholic and Q. Elizabeth a Catholic Reformed Hence he infers by way of Corollary that the trial of Heresies and Hereticks by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy-Church was admitted or excluded here according as the Prince was Catholic or Reform'd This sentence carries two faces and is capable of two very different Constructions Either it may signifie that the Clergy were or were not the tryers of Heretics according as the Prince was Romanist or Reformed ‖ and then it is false Or that the Determinations of Holy Church You must understand the C. of Rome were or were not the Rule of such Trials according as the Prince was of the Roman or Reform'd Communion and then it is wonderfully impertinent § 40 This seeker goes on and finds it affirm'd in an Act of Parliament that All Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is deriv'd from the King as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England But if he had pleas'd He might have found too that this Act is repeal'd and that therefore we are under no Obligation to defend it But if Jurisdiction be understood in the limited sense before explain'd this Act has no poison in it And so it will be understood by any one who consults the Context But this Act has been so largely and distinctly discuss'd by a Learned a Bishop Sanderson's Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal power Casuist that a farther disquisition of it is needless The change of Election of Bishops by Conge d'eslire into Collation by Letters-Patents is a bad instance of the King's Supremacy for if such collation infers a Regal Supremacy those who have read that Bishopricks were originally Donative not Elective will be apt to conclude that the King
's of England were always Supreme Nor is this Nomination at all injurious to the Divine Right of Bishops which is not deriv'd from the Persons Electing or Nominating but the Pastors Consecrating But we have him again crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He finds the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. By Virtue of their Acts to take Informations concerning the not using of the Common-Prayer c. Therein prescrib'd and to punish the same by Excommunication c. The first and last of these cs are very artificially placed for corrupting the Text. After Bishops should have follow'd Chancellors and Commissaries after Excommunication Sequestration and other Censures and Processes So that the Autority given by this Act doth not necessarily respect the Bishops and that Power of Excommunicating which they have jure divino but may relate to the power given to Chancellors and Commissaries and other Officers who plead no such divine right to their respective Functions or if the Bishops are included yet not so as that they derive the power of Excommunicating from this Act but of inflicting the other punish-ments which by this Act may be inflicted Or let us suppose the Bishops authoriz'd by this Act to Excommunicate and Excommunication taken in the strictest sense for internal Censures yet this will be no injury to their Jus divinum untill it be prov'd that because God has gave the Bishops a power to Excommunicate therefore the King may not command them to put it in Execution where there is a just Cause § 41 He finds 32 Persons commission'd to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical But this he found before in King Henry's Reign where it has already been consider'd and whither I refer the Reader as often as this Author shall be pleas'd to remind us of this Discovery § 42 He finds Six Prelates and Six others commissioned to make a new form of Consecration of Bishop's and Priests He might have found that this Act as well as the former was made at the a See the Petitions of the Clergy Burn. Vol. 2. p. 47. request of the Convocation Nothing is by him excepted against the Form it self and for the Autority the Synod petition'd such a Commission might be granted the b Six Prelates and six Divines Bur. V. 2. p. 141. Persons commission'd were all Clergy Men and c King Edwards Articles Art 35. Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 218. the Synod confirm'd it when done As for the Oath against the Pope inserted in the new Ordinal it was by birth a Roman-Catholic d Fox p. 1092. King Henry's Bishops took it without scruple That e Compare the Oath in Fox with the Oath of Supremacy as it now stands part of it which this Author thinks most offensive is since put out and he may be as severe as he pleaseth upon a Non-entity The Heretical Catechism in the 43d Paragraph shall be spoken to when it meets us agen in the 166th § 43 The 44th would justifie a Protestation of Bishop Bonner's which that Bishop himself a Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 112. recanted He is angry at Fox for calling that Protestation Popish But the Prelate himself in his recantation of it calls it unadvised of ill ex-example unreasonable and undutifull If Fox abuses the Bishop it is because Popish signifies something worse then all these § 45 We are next entertain'd with a confus'd Catalogue of Articles propos'd to Bishop Gardiner's Subscription together with our Author's Notes upon them One of the most pertinent Notes would have been that Bishop b Fox p. 1350. 1357. Gardiner subscrib'd most of these Articles but this was not for his Interest to observe His remark is that tho' in some of these Articles the Autority of Parliament is mention'd yet in none of these is any thing said of the Consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Parliamentary or Regal injunctions valid That the consent of the Clergy was urg'd to this Bishop I hope he does not deny I am sure c §. 110. it is urg'd by r. that in the charge given in against Gardiner it is said that the Injunctions were of all men for all sorts obediently receiv'd And that this charge was given in is not denied in the Reply to r. §. 119. elsewhere He confesses it The meaning must be that this consent was not urg'd under the modality of making the Regal Injunctions valid Nor do I see any Necessity it should for Gardiner had not yet so far refin'd his gross sense of the Supremacy but that he still own'd his Obligation to obey His Majestie 's Godly Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion Neither could the Imposers of these Injunctions according to their Principles lay so great a stress on the consent of the Clergy for if the matter of the Injunctions was unlawful no Church-Autority could make them lawful but if it was agreeable to the Law of God then the Civil Autority without the Synodal if that had been wanting was sufficient From this idle remark the Author has rais'd as idle a Consequence From this non-mentioning the consent of the Clergy he collects that when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mention'd as sometimes it is it is not to add any Autority to these Injunctions thereby Now to me it seemes a wild Inference that because the Synodal consent was once not urg'd as necessary therefore when-ever it was urg'd it was thought to add no Autority I may certainly obey my Prince in a thing lawful tho' my Pastor doth not at the same time exact this Obedience from me But when they both require the same Duty there ariseth a new tie of Obedience and I am now under a double Obligation But least we should wonder why the King and Parliament never pleaded any Necessity of the Synodal consent the Author conjectures the reasons to be 1st Because some of the Voters were displac'd and so their suffrage less Authentical But these places were supplied and then I would know why those who succeeded into their Pastoral charge did not also succeed into their Synodal Autority and if so why the Reformers should think the Act of a Synod less Authentical when Ridley sat there than when Bonner did His second reason is Because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force but so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were superior to the English Clergy And if the King urg'd his and his Subject's freedom from the Laws of the Church Vniversal so must He also from the Laws of his own Church National Church Superior Synods and the Church-Vniversal are words which sound big but when they come to be construed the Laws of the Church signifie Papal Decrees Superior Synods are put for any Council that is forreign and the Church-Vniversal dwindles into Roman-Catholic In this case I hope we may obey our Lawful Pastors tho' we reject an Usurper
by the a p. 40. Animadverter that no more power is there challeng'd to the Prince than was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and so much our Church-Governour if he will be constant to his own Principles cannot deny As to the Clause of the 37th Article § 75 that he tells us will be subscrib'd by all sides I hope therefore the Supremacy is there limited Else the Romanists will subscribe to an unlimited power of the Prince § 76 As to the Proviso that the adjudging of Heresie should be confin'd to the Canonical Scriptures four first General Councils and Assent of Convocation and that this should be no confinement of the Supremacy § 77 is to me a Paradox That the re-establishment of the Supremacy was not consented to by the Bishops who were in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign is true but whether those in the former Chapter have been prov'd a lawful Hierarchy must be left to the Reader This indeed was asserted strongly but proving is not this Author's talent A Reply to Chapter the 7th I Have hitherto not without great patience pursued this Author through all his windings and turnings and every where discover'd his constant fallacies and prevarications Being arriv'd to Q. Elizabeth's Reign in which the Reformation had it's last settlements We might justly have hop'd He would have been drawing towards a Conclusion But We have been wandring in a Labyrinth and after this tedious pursuit are brought to the same point again whence We first set out Four long Chapters have been spent to shew us what Supremacy King Hen. Ed. and Q. Eliz. assum'd and the same things are to be repeated again in above an hundred pages more § 78 to shew how they acted according to such Supremacy This I know is a frightful prospect to the Reader but that He may not be dejected I promise him to dispatch the succeeding Chapters with greater brevity and to give them an Answer more proportionable to their weight than their bulk § 79 We are told that King Henry by Virtue of his Supremacy committed the Laws Ecclesiastical to be reformed by 32 Commissioners But this was a Repetition when we met it last it was spoke to when it first offer'd it self and I should follow a bad pattern if his Example should invite me to repeat § 80 By Virtue of such Supremacy he set forth certain Injunctions concerning Matters of Faith These Injunctions were the genuine Acts of the Convocation The setting them forth therefore was not by virtue of any such i. e. any new Supremacy For it is confest that to enjoyn the observance of Synodical decrees by Temporal punishments was such a Supremacy § 16 as the Princes of this Land before Hen. 8th had and exercis'd These Articles set forth seem to him to have nothing in them favouring the Reformed Opinions and to discede in nothing from the Doctrine of former Councils Why then are they brought here as an Evidence that the Reformation was carried on by mere Civil Supremacy But however our Author and Sanders agree in their History they differ much in their judgment a Sand. p. 119 Sanders styles some of these Articles Heretical the Doctrines of Luther and Zwinglius and saith they are diametrically oposite to the Catholic Religion The body of them he compares to the Alcoran as made up of a Medley of Religions and after his usual manner of treating Princes calls King Henry upon this Occasion another Mahomet a Bur. V. 1. p. 218. The Reformers at that time thought a great Step made by these Articles towards a Reformation The Papists here were much mortified by them and the Papal party abroad made great Use of them to shew the necessity of adhering to the Pope since King Henry having broke off his Obedience to the Apostolic See did not as he had pretended maintain the Catholic Faith intire If therefore these Articles do in nothing discede from Popery it is because the New Popery of this Age has disceded much from the antiquated Popery of the former It is noted that the King by Virtue of his Supremacy commands these Injunctions to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judg'd by him agreeable to the Law of God Our Author had little matter for Censure when He urg'd this as an Accusation It is imputed that he paid more deference to Christ's Law then to the Act of a Convocation and chose rather to resolve his and his Subjects Obedience into the Autority of God then of Man Thus are We taught that we must put out our Eyes e're We can follow Our Spiritual Guide as We ought and in our Faith prescind from Christ's Autority if We will approve our selves good Catholics For if what is enjoyn'd by the Church seem agreeable to the Word of God and therefore is accepted such acceptance is accus'd of not being sufficiently resigning So that no one according to these Principles is a true Son of the Church but he who pays a blind Obedience to her Dictates either without any regard to God's Laws or in formal Opposition to them § 81 By Virtue of such Supremacy he publish'd a Book entitl'd A necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People The two a Bur. V. 1. p. 274. Arch-Bishops several Bishops and Doctors of the Church compil'd this book If the Doctrines in it were as Orthodox as they were thought necessary I see no harm in the Publication Whether they were or not concerns not us it being not pretended that these or the Six Articles which are here also urg'd were Acts of the Reformation § 82 Heresie became a thing of the Parliament's cognizance as well as the King 's Of their cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but also the adjudging of it What the nice difference is betwixt declaring and adjudging Heresie I am not so subtle a Nominalist as to determine Heresie was no farther of the Parliament's cognizance then to declare how it should be punish'd It was in this sense of the Parliament's cognizance before King Henry the 8th 's time when the Laws were made against Lollards and after King Edward's time when those Acts were by Q. Mary's Parliament reviv'd He has dwelt the longer on these Instances that We may see when a Prince together with his Particular Clergy §. 83 84.85 or rather whom out of them He shall choose claims a power of composing Models of Christian Faith and declaring all those his Subjects Heretics who do not believe and obey such his Determinations what danger what mutability occurrs in such a Nation as often as this Independent Head is not every way Orthodox It concerns not us what ill Consequences may attend the claim of such a power untill it be prov'd that we ascribe such an Autority of New-Modelling the Faith to our Princes The Apostolic Nicene and Athanasian Creeds we receive and embrace
have effected a Reformation but could not for which we are bid to see Antiq. Britann p. 339. But he who would see any such thing there must borrow our Author's Spectacles χ Urges that it makes no real difference whether a Reformation begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Prince be by him established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince mov'd by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole Body of the Clergy be by them generally receiv'd and put in practice according to the command of Sovereign Autority The Answer is § 130 that the King did not propose a Reformation to the Clergy by them to be consulted of and upon their Assent or denial to be establish'd or laid aside which would have been lawful but by them to be obey'd as impos'd by the King which He thinks unwarrantable But to this it may be replied from what has before been urg'd that the matter of the Command being lawful not to say necessary the Autority of the Prince is Obligatory and that the conformity of the Bishops is an Evidence that the matter was by them judg'd lawful In λ it is urg'd that the first Form of Common-prayer and Administration of Sacraments in the 2d. Year and 2d. Parliament of King Edward's reign had the approbation and consent of the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation To this it is offer'd by way of Answer That no other Act of Reformation before the 5th of King Edward had the consent of Convocation § 126 But neither is this true nor doth it prove that therefore this Liturgy had not That it was confirm'd by Act of Parliament before it had this consent But granting this had it therefore not the consent of Convocation But how doth he prove that the Act of Parliament preceded the Decree of the Synod Because the Act of Parliament doth not mention the consent of Convocation Negative Arguments he knows do not conclude and it is positively said in the a For. p. 1303. Letter of the Council to Bishop Bonner that this Liturgy not only had the Assent but was set forth with the Assent of the Clergy in Convocation Our Author himself when he has forgot the debate here § 146 will tell us that the Liturgy was at the same time authoriz'd by Act of Parliament and consented to by Convocation But it is said the Second Liturgy was sent to the Clergy autoritate Regis Parliamenti Ergo the first Liturgy had not the consent of Convocation But a motive to this consent might be fear of punishment Yet the a Bur. V. 2. p. 101. Convocation which gave this consent acknowledg'd to King Edward the quietness they enjoy'd under him having no let nor impediment in the Service of God But the with-drawing of a few Clergy especially if prime leaders and introducing new Votes of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting in six new ones may render that which before was a major part now a lesser and consequently the Act of this major part invalid This putting of cases is very impertinent here for when the consent of Convocation was given to the Liturgy not one old Bishop was depriv'd For the Letter to Bonner before mention'd which mentions this Assent of Convocation to the Liturgy is directed to him then Bishop of London who yet was the first of the Bishops depriv'd This Liturgy he saith rather omitted then gainsaid the former Church-tenents and practice This is urg'd by way of Apology for the Convocation's consenting but whether the Liturgy omitted or gainsaid the Church-practise it was one main branch of the Reformation and it is not denied that it had the Vote of a Synod The errors reform'd were such as corrupted either the Worship or Doctrine that the Reformation of Worship had the Autority of a Synod is after much shuffling granted Whether the Articles which were the Reformation of Doctrine were not confirm'd by the same Autority is to be examin'd § 134 This μ with good reason affirms the Replier defers the dispute Whether the Articles were the Act of the Synod and upon Supposition that they were Answers that the Clergy were now much chang'd many old Bishops displac'd new ones introduc'd many absented from Synod others dissembled All this is said upon our Author 's bare credit which by this time may not be altogether unexceptionable Only five Bishops have been prov'd to be ejected two of these Heath and Day in the same Year wherein these Articles were past and their Deprivation plac'd in History after the passing of the Articles the Bishoprick of Durham was not yet dissolv'd only two New Voters therefore Ridley and Poinet introduced by the Ejection of the old Bonner and Gardiner and those old not prov'd to have been unlawfully ejected § 135 What is said in ν is not denied in the Answet to ν but something said which must wait for a Reply till Church-Government Part the 4th has overtook the 5th A Reply to Chapters the 9th and 10th § 136 OUr Author having describ'd the general way of King Edward's Reformation proceeds to particulars His description of the general has prov'd very Poetical the particulars are most of them serv'd up the second time and very little alter'd in the dressing § 136 By Virtue of such Supremacy he sent Articles to the Bishop of Winchester to subscribe But these Articles were sent once before in the 45th Paragraph and needed not have been sent again here since the Bishop a Fox p. 1350.1357 subscrib'd all but that which contain'd an acknowledgment of his fault at the first sending § 137 By Virtue of such Supremacy the six Articles were repeal'd without a Synod The repealing of an Act of Parliament is not I suppose the business of the Convocation King Henry's Parliament had affix'd severe Penalties on the Violators of the Six Articles these King Edward's Parliament took off Nothing therefore was repeal'd by the Civil power but it 's own Act. But neither is it true that none of these Articles were revok'd by Synod For the b Bur. V. 2. p. 50. Convocation that sat with this Parliament declar'd for Communion in both kinds and Marriage of Priests contrary to two of those Articles Had not the Registers of this and other Synods been c Ibid. lost I doubt not but we could have prov'd most Acts of the Reformation Synodical § 138 By Virtue of such Supremacy he justified the power us'd by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses That is He did not throw up his right to them This power was justified by Gardiner and Bonner and others whom our Author must own for Catholics This Power was justified by Q. Mary's Parliaments who would not part with their Lands as they did with their Heresy This power is still justifiable by the Romanists or else a late d Nath. Johnson Author deceivs
be past by them It was not the Doctrine of the Catechism or Articles which was here question'd but the false ascription of the Catechism to the Synod Now the Articles being undeniably genuine they content themselves only to condemn the Doctrine of them but the Catechism being suppos'd illegitimate they subscribe both against it's Doctrine and Autority Nor could Philpot have pleaded as our Author would have had him that the Synod's composing the Articles justified the Act of the Delegates composing the Catechism since this might indeed warrant the Doctrine of the Catechism but not the entitling it to the Synod He saith all the Historians that he hath seen are silent concerning these Articles In this dispute concerning the Articles Dr. Heylin is twice mention'd and two several Books of his refer'd to in those very pages where he mentions these Articles In his a Heylin's Hist p. 121. History He thinks them debated and concluded on by a Grand Committee on whom the Convocation had devolv'd their power and esteems it not improbable that these Articles being debated and agreed upon by the said Committee might also pass the Vote of the whole Convocation though we find nothing to that purpose in the Acts thereof which either have been lost or never were registred I add or being once Registred were expung'd In his Reformation justified a Ref Justif § 4. He positively affirms that the Clergy in Synod 1552. did compose and agree upon a book of Articles Neither therefore is Dr. Heylin silent herein nor is he one of the Historians which this Author never saw Dr. Burnet is another Historian whom either this Editor had seen or ought not to have publish'd this Relation till he had first consulted him He peremptorily affirms b Bur. V 2. p. 195. that in the Year 1552. the Convocation agreed to the Articles of Religion that were prepar'd the year before But our Author has still another Objection in reserve that the Arch-Bishop Cranmer to whom it would have been an excellent Defence to have shew'd these Articles to have been subscrib'd by a full Synod yet pleaded no such thing That Reverend Martyr pleaded that the Opinions which he maintain'd were the Doctrines of the Scripture and Primitive Church that the rejection of the Pope's Supremacy the fundamental Heresie of which he was accus'd was the Unanimous Act of the whole English Clergy and Nation and which his very Judges had solemnly sworn to Now if this Plea could avail nothing in his Defence it must have been a weak Plea to have insisted on Articles past in a Synod call'd by himself and over which he by reason of his Archiepiscopal Autority had great Influence This dispute is concluded with a shrewd Remark which our Author raises from a passage of Dr. Heylin The Dr. observes that this Book of Articles was not confirm'd by any Act of Parliament whence he concludes that the Reform'd Religion cannot be call'd a Parliament Religion Hence this Author gathers that neither was it a Synodal Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating the Synods in all other transactions of the Reformation Now tho' there is ground for the Drs. observation because there is never an Act which formally gives Sanction to these Articles yet there is in one of those very Acts cited from the Doctor in this Pamphlet that which quite overthrows our Author's Conclusion For in the Act for Legitimating Marriages of Priests it is said that the untrue Slanderous report of Holy Matrimony did redound to the High dishonour of the Learned Clergy of this Realm who have determin'd the same to be most Lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by common Assent as by the Subscription of their Hands Which words plainly refer to the 31st of these Articles and are an Authoritative Testimony that they are the genuine Act of the Synod and had I doubt not been expung'd had the Commission of rasure extended to the Statute-Book I have insisted the longer on this particular because it is a matter of some moment and because the Author has here us'd more then ordinary Artifice I have not had the benefit of any Registers or Manuscripts nor am I skill'd in these niceties of History What has been said sufficiently overthrows all his Cavils but the Curious and the Learned are able to give a more Authentic and Solid account of this matter A Reply to Chapter the 11th THat the Reformation was restor'd by Q. Elizabeth after the extirpation of it by Q. Mary might have been said in fewer lines than this Author is pleas'd to use Paragraphs That some things were at first reduc'd without Synodal Autority I confess and that the Reformation had it's last settlement by a Synod he cannot deny The Act of the first Popish Convocation I esteem illegal because the Q. had sent and requir'd them under the pain of a Premunire not to make Canons The Canonicalness of Q. Mary's Clergy here acting depends upon his former Proofs which were not altogether Demonstrative But let their Autority be suppos'd just yet these Constitutions were repeal'd by a later Synod whose Autority must be conceded equal and therefore their Act as being the last Autoritative The stress therefore of the Controversy lies in this whether Q. Elizabeth's new Bishops were lawfully introduc'd and this depends upon the legality of the ejection of the Old The Cause of their ejection is confest to be their denial of the Oath of Supremacy and is just or unjust according as that Oath was lawful or unlawful Our Author therefore sets himself to examine that Oath where he first puts his own Exposition upon it and then attacqs it as so expounded Neither Q. Elizabeth's explication of her own Sense nor the Church's Exposition in her Articles favour his Construction Those who take this Oath are not perswaded that they abjure the Autority of a General Council or the Jurisdiction of their own National Clergy But if we accept it in that Sense which he is pleas'd to impose upon it Yet still the Strength of his Arguments depends on such Assertions as are to be supported by his four first part of Church-Government We must therefore wait the Edition of those before We can be satisfied of the Strength of these But if we may make an estimate of future performances from past there is no reason to expect any thing formidable from that Quarter For the only business of our Modern Controvertists is to rally up those scatter'd forces which have long since quitted the field to our Forefathers This Oath of Supremacy has exercis'd the Pens of the greatest Champions of both Churches and there is not a shadow of an Argument here brought against it but what has been baffled when manag'd with better skill and more Learning than this Author is Master of The Regal Supremacy in Opposition to the Papal has been asserted by our Kings James the first and Charles the first
Order they had sufficient Autority to Consecrate him As for the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs it has no Divine Institution it rose upon the division of Provinces and the Kings of Western Churches did first give those Preheminences to some Towns and Sees a Vindic. of Ord. p. 77. c. Pamph. But then might not She at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction which he held only on her gift A. Bp. Br. We hold our Benefices by humane right our Offices of Priests and Bishops both by divine right and humane right But put the case we did hold our Bishopricks only by humane right is it one of Your Cases of Conscience that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing which they hold by humane right If one Man take from another that which he holds justly by the Law of Man he is a thief and a robber by the Law of God a Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 11. p. 489. Pamph. But the Autority of these Ordainers standing good one or two Bishops is not a competent Number for Ordination A. Bp. Br. The Commission for their Consecration limited the Consecrators to four when the Canons of the Catholic Church require but three Three had been enough to make a valid Ordination yea to make a Canonical Ordination b Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc 5. c 5. p. 451. Pamph. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops as it was made in Edward the 6th 's time so it was revok'd by Synod in Queen Mary's days and by no Synod afterwards restor'd before their Ordination Dr. Burn. It is a common place and has been handled by many Writers how far the Civil Magistrate may make Laws and give commands about Sacred things The Prelates and the Divines by the Autority they had from Christ and the warrant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church made the Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal and the King and Parliament who are vested with the Supreme Legislative power added their Autority to them to make them Obligatory on the Subject Let these Men declare upon their Consciences if there be any thing they desire more earnestly than such an Act for Authorizing their own Forms and would they make any Scruple to accept of it if they might have it a Bur. Vindic. of Ordin p. 51. c. Pamph. But this Form was revok'd also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days and not by any Act restor'd till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops viz in 8. Eliz. 1. upon Bonner's urging hereupon that the Queen 's were no Legal Bishops Pamphlet it self in the next Page The new Ordinal when Arch-Bishop Parker was to be Consecrated by it did not want sufficient Lay-license having the Queen's nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it for which see Bishop Bramhal Pamph. For such Considerations as these it seems it was that the Queen in her Mandate for the Ordination of her new Arch-Bishop Parker was glad out of her Spiritual Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining to dispense and give them leave to dispense to themselves with all former Church-Laws which should be transgrest in the electing and consecrating and investing of this Bishop A. Bp. Br. There is a double power Ecclesiastical of Order and of Jurisdiction Which two are so different the one from the other as themselves both teach and practise that there may be true Orders without Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and an actual Jurisdiction without Holy Orders He leaves the Orders in the plain field to busy himself about the power of Jurisdiction which is nothing to the Question That which the Statute calls the Autority of Jurisdiction is the coercive and compulsory power of summoning the King's Subjects by Processes which is indeed from the Crown The Kings of England neither have any power of the Keys nor can derive them to others He need not fear our deriving our Orders from them a Tom. 4. Disc 7. p. 1000. As for the Dispensative clause it doth not extend at all to the Institution of Christ or any Essential of Ordination nor to the Canons of the Universal Church but only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of England The Commissioners authoriz'd by these Letters Patent to Confirm and Consecrate Arch-Bishop Parker did make use of the Supplentes or Dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a Political Act as appears by the words of the Confirmation but not in the Consecration which is a purely Spiritual Act and belongeth merely to the Key of Order b Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 453. Pamph. Notwithstanding this Regal Dispensation a Statute was afterwards made 8. Eliz. 1. c. to take away all Scruple Ambiguity or doubt concerning these Consecrations A. Bp. Br. It was only a Declaration of the Parliament that all the Objections which these Men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies and that all the Bishops which had been ordain'd in the Queen's time had been rightly ordain'd according to the Form prescrib'd by the Church of England and the Laws of the Land These Men want no confidence who are not asham'd to cite this Statute in this case c Ibid. p. 439. I have transcrib'd the very words of the Authors to shew the importunity of these Men who are not asham'd to transcribe not only the matter but the very form of those Arguments which have been so often confuted But there is I confess one thing new in this Chapter which seems as if reserv'd for this Writer He would prove that the Queens dispensation relates not to her own Laws but to the Laws of the Catholic Church The words in the Commission are Supplentes c. Siquid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur So that the Clause extends only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of this Kingdom as the Learned a A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 453. Primate understands it But this Author with his wonted ingenuity omits the words per Statuta hujus Regni and then construes the Leges Ecclesiasticas to be the Laws not of the English but the Universal Church A Reply to Chapter the 13th A Reply to his former Chapters has made any Consideration of this needless He supposes he has prov'd that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy and I may be allow'd to suppose that he has not prov'd it He has indeed affirm'd that it had not Synodical Autority under King Edward and Queen Elizabeth and he had not ventur'd much farther had he affirm'd that there never were such Princes In this Chapter he has found Six Protestant Divines who are of Opinion that Princes may in cases extraordinary Lawfully Reform without or against
Protestant Religion passed as an Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament when all the Bishops therein present opposed it See Camden's An. 1. Eliz. And 1. Eliz. 1. c.. § 13 The Seventh Thesis That Thesis 7th tho Secular Princes were allowed to have a decisive power in some matters of Faith such as are no way formerly determined which is contrary to the First and Second Thesis yet for such points as have been formerly determined on any side here since a National Synod may not define any such thing contrary to former superior Councils much less may any Secular person define any such things contrary to those Councils or also contrary to a National Synod § 14 The Eighth Thesis That Thesis 8th as touching Divine truths and matters of Faith spoken of hitherto so now for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution and not Divine Command Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any new Canons concerning the Government and Discipline of the Church contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them at least so many of these as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his civil Government nor the National Synod can shew some way more prejudicial to their particular Church than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches See this Thesis proved in Chur. Gov. 2. Part. § 63. And 3. Part. § 13. n. 3. And § 27. n. 2. § 15 These Theses being set down whereby to judge of the Regularity of a Reformation let us now view the carriage thereof here in England in the time of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and how far it hath deviated from them Touching which Reformation I would desire you to read together with these â—ay Observations what is related in defence thereof by Dr. Hammond Schism 7. c. Dr. Fern in Considerations touching the Reformed Church 2. and 9. Chap. And Dr. Heylin's Treatise called the Reformation of the Church of England Justified lest I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable in this matter And here §. 16. 1. Three Heads of this Discourse confining my Discourse to Three Heads I will first give you an account how the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's days were at the beginning induced to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy in Spiritual matters after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly and how far only at first they seem to have allowed it I say after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly Because some Supremacy namely this of assembling a Synod of the Clergy upon Temporal punishments in case of Disobedience by their Writs the ancient form of which see in Dr. Heylin p. 4 when any urgent occasions required as likewise of enjoyning to all their Subjects as well Clergy as others upon Temporal Penalties the observance of the Decrees and Constitutions of such Synods or of any other former lawful Councils such as the Clergy shall acknowledge to have been the Decrees thereof these Supremacies I say the Princes of this Land before Henry the Eighth had and exercised neither was any such Supremacy usurped or interrupted by the Pope Neither do the Roman Doctors deny such an external coactive Jurisdiction of Princes in Spiritual Affairs 1. as to bind their Clergy upon Temporal Mulcts to meet together in Council when the same Princes shall think it necessary the Ecclesiasticks being their Subjects as well as Christs Clergy and on this account bound to obey them as well as their Spiritual Governors on the other and there being often good cause of their assembling in order to the peace and welfare of the civil State committed to the Princes care because this dependeth much on the right Government of the Church committed to theirs Provided only that these Assemblies be so timed and disposed by the Prince as that the authority which our Saviour hath committed to the Church concerning the assembling of the same persons be no way disturbed thereby For doubtless when both at the same time cannot be done their Service to the Church is to be preferred before that to the State 2. as to bind their Subjects upon External and Temporal Mulcts and Punishments to observe the Laws and Determinations of the Church But First that the Governors of the Church have also power upon Ecclesiastical Censures to assemble a Synod of Clergy when there seems need tho the Prince oppose it this indeed those Doctors affirm And secondly whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Prince's coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of he Church this they bring in question But then as his last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors so it is opposed by others of them 2. We will consider what manner of Supremacy was afterward by little and little either challenged by the Prince or by the Clergy or Parliament given unto him as his right 3. And Thirdly how according to this their conceived right those Three Princes acted CHAP. II. The Inducement of the English Clergy to acknowledge a Regal Supremacy in Spirituals I. Head § 17 FOR the First Henry the Eighth whether because scrupulous in Conscience How the Engl. Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals occasioned by his Daughter Mary's being offered in Marriage first to the Emperor Charles the Fifth and then to Francis King of France and by both refused as is said upon this account because they doubted of the lawfulness of Henry ' s Marriage with her Mother or whether because much enamoured on another Lady Anne Bullen Daughter to the Treasurer of his Houshold and an Attendant on the Queen yet between whom and him it is said that the King was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7 c. never after repealed plainly declared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the Seventh Etiamsi illa tibi alià s secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis aut primo affinitatis gradu etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit do give some suspicion Had a great desire after Twenty years cohabitation to be divorced from Queen Katherine because having been formerly his Brother's Wife Cardinal Wolsey being made the Bishops Legate together with Cardinal Campegius for the hearing and determining this matter tho at first he much corresponded with the King's Inclinations having designed his Matching with the King of France his Sister as is thought from some Self-interests yet when
Synodical or by whatsoever name they shall be called unless the King by his Royal assent command them to make promulge and execute the same See for this the Preface of the Act of Parliament Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth 19. c. where it is said that the Clergy of the Realm of England had not only acknowledged that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ but also submitting themselves to the Kings Majesty had promised in verbo Sacerdotii that they would never from henceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called unless the Kings most Royal assent may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same But they gave up also their power to execute any old Canons of the Church without the Kings consent had first thereto as appears by what follows in the next Section The whole Debate with all the traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared herein saith Dr. Heylin are specified at large in the Records of Convocation 1532 which were well worthy the viewing Now if the First and Second Thesis above-named stand good this Act of the Clergy is utterly unlawful For by this the Prince hath authority to hinder the Clergy from altering or reforming any former setled Doctrine in his Kingdome As King Charles also in his Declaration before the 39 Articles manifesteth that he will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree from the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England any varying i. e by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation In what case then had the Reformation been if former Princes in the same language as King Charles had used this pretended lawful power in prohibiting Bishops c. to attempt enact promulge c any thing contrary to the then here setled Popish Doctrines To advance yet somewhat further In the Preface of the same Act of Parliament the Clergy are also said which thing neither Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond § 23. nor Dr. Fern have sufficiently weighed in their Relations of the English Reformation to have humbly besought the Kings Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial or Synodal which be thought to be prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of Thirty Two Persons Sixteen of the Temporalty and Sixteen of the Clergy of the Realm to be chosen and appointed by the Kings Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c shall stand in power Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal not only such as were the sole Constitutions and Canons of the Synods of this Nation which the like Synods may lawfully correct but such as were also the Canons of superior Synods which the Synods of this Nation could not lawfully annul This appears both by the practice of their abrogating and reforming of several Canons that were such nay I think such were all that were reformed and also by the Tenent See below § 28. Statute 25. Hen. 8.21 c. that all the Constitutions made only by mans authority are by the King being supream in his Dominions as he thinks fit mutable To stand with the Laws of God therefore any Canon tho it were not against the Kings Prerogative or Law of the Realm yet if thought by these Judges not to stand with the Laws of God might be annulled Shall be thought by the more part of them Therefore an Act of the Laity in these Spiritual matters if obtaining the consent only of one Clergy-man tho all the rest oppose nay if obtaining the consent of the King tho all the Clergy-Commissioners oppose stands good as being an Act of the major part § 25 In this Act of the Clergy if it be supposed a Synodical request of the whole Clergy and not only of some persons thereof more addicted to the Kings Inclinations and if Canons and Constitutions here be not restrained only to those that seem some way to intrench upon the rights of Civil Power or to some Ecclesiastical external Rites and Ceremonies I see not but that the Clergy here gives away to the King and to the Laity at least if assisted with one or two or indeed without any Clergy their Synodical power to conclude and determine matters of Faith and to order the Government of the Church as they shall think best since all the former Canons and Constitutions Synodal are not about matters of External Rite and Ceremony but some doubtless concerning matters of Faith and such Christian Practices and Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline as are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and necessarily involve Faith of all which Canons the 32 are now made Judges what stands with Gods Law or what is contrary thereto and the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum drawn up partly in Henry the Eighth's partly in Edward the Sixth's time by such Commissioners Reprinted 1640 is found to meddle not only with Canons repugnant to Civil Government or with Rites and Ceremonies but with matters of the Divine Offices and Sacraments Heresies c as appears in the very Titles of that Book Now such Act of the Clergy must needs be most unjust and unlawful if the First or Second or Seventh Thesis above-recited stand good § 26 But whatever sense these words in the Preface of the Act were or may be extended to I do not think that the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine Truth By which authority Princes might as they also did change Religion in this Kingdome at their pleasure but imagined that as they obliged themselves to do nothing without the Kings consent so neither in these matters especially should the King do any thing without theirs as may be gathered First by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supream recited before Secondly by the Declaration of the Bishops against the Pope See Fox p. 971. wherein they alledge against him the Third Canon of the Second General Council Enacting ut controversiae ab Episcopis Provinciarum ubi ortae sunt terminentur that all Causes shall be finished and determined within the Province where the same began and that by the Bishops ef the same Province urged also by Bishop Tonstal in his Answer to Cardinal Poole And Thirdly By several of the said Bishops and particularly by this Tonstal's and Gardiner's of whom Dr. Fern saith that none could have written better against the
no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever Secondly That for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop Commissioners by the Kings Highness to be appointed shall have full power and authority to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same and no further Appeals to be made These Commissioners therefore appointed by the King are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod or to the Patriarch § 34 Again 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament That no speaking doing or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the Kings Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy From which all that I would note is this that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy and do declare that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them Again it is Enacted by Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540 are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and shall suffer pains of death by Burning Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy without any Appeal as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19 c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis And the Protestants in justifying this Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Or A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People set forth by the King's Authority at that time or against the Six Articles which were in the same Act Established as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. the Publishing of which Act saith Lord Herbert p. 447. gave no little occasion of murmur since to revoke the conscience not only from its own Court but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law as is there Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. set down §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded § 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is That Henry the Eighth made no new Law See likewise his Vindic. p. 86. 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth were only declarative of old Law not enactive of new Law proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert and of the Lord Coke Reports Fifth Part. And 2ly Schism Guarded p. 61 62. That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso Fox the First of these if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke Reports §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. c. You shall find no such thing if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes You may find Appeals to the Pope or other Forreign Judge and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus to have been prohibited by former Laws that is in some particular Cases wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights Profits Securities or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor Vobis posteris vestris Regibus c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66. This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5 c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where upon pain of a Premunire all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome But this is in certain Cases only see Vindic. p. 81. Cases indeed Ecclesiastical but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects which all Ecclesiastical matters I hope neither are nor are pretended to be viz. these Cases Popes refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question Again The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent whereby saith the Statute the Kings Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away and so the Realm destitute as well of Council as of Substance surely these are Temporal Considerations and so the Crown of England which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope c. the Regality that is in those Temporal things above named In these Cases Bulls c from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited as infringing the Civil Rights And to this Statute in such case it is said there the Lords Spiritual gave their consent But meanwhile making Protestations saith the Statute that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church And Richard the Second notwithstanding this Act was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it 2. Rich. 2.7 Again you may find perhaps Appeals Bulls c prohibited in general without the Kings content first obtained thereto But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them but only out of an intention to examine them first whether any thing were contained in them
Saying p. 92. If thus the Bishop will have Secular Princes to have nothing to do in the making or hindring any Decrees or Laws of the Church-men in matters meerly Spiritual but only to have such a sole dominion over the Secular Sword as that none can use it but he or by his leave in the execution of such Laws all is well but then the former-quoted Statutes of Henry the Eighth shew much more Power challenged than the Bishop alloweth This in Answer to the Bishop Secondly If it be further said here touching that particular Statute of much concernment 26. Hen. 8.1 c. quoted before § 26 and § 25. Namely §. 35. n. 4. 1 That the King shall have full power from time to time to visit repress reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spritual Authority c lawfully may be reformed c. See §. 25. If it be said here that the King hath only this power therein ascribed to him to redress and reform the Errors and Heresies which are declared such by the Church by former Councils or by the Synods of his Clergy but that he hath no power given him to judge or declare what is Error or Heresy 1. First thus then he hath not all the power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction may be exercised as it follows in that Act because there is a Spiritual Authority also that may declare new Errors and Heresies or that may reform such Errors as have not been by Synods formerly declared such and it seems this He hath not Secondly Thus the Clause ending the Act any Custome Forreign Laws Prescription c notwithstanding is utterly useless because no Forreign Laws or Prescriptions deny this Authority to Kings to reform Errors c in their Dominions so that they still confine themselves to the precedent Judgments of the Church Thirdly In the Act fore-quoted 25. Hen. 8.19 c. 'T is granted to his Highness and Thirty Two Commissioners elected by him to annul and make invalid what former Synodal Canons they think not to stand with the Laws of God therefore they have power to judge which Canons are such and to reform them i. e to teach and declare the contrary truths to them when thought by them Errors against the judgment of former Synods and without the judgment of a new Synod and what is this but to judge and pronounce de novo what is Error and Heresy Enormity Abuse c Fourthly Lastly how comes the King or his Commissioners to be made the ultimate judge See before § 31.25 Hen. 8.19 c. in all Appeals touching Divine matters if he or they cannot judge in these what is Error Since some Causes and Controversies may haply come before him not determined by former Councils And for the Errors he reforms if he is still to follow the judgment of his Clergy what are such Errors how are there in these things Appeals admitted to him from the judgments of his Clergy § 36 This said to remove the mis-interpretation of that Act I will add to these Acts of Parliament which I have been reciting to you from § 26. those words in the Kings last Speech which he made in Parliament not long before his death reprehending his Subjects for their great dissension in Opinion and Doctrine If you know surely saith he that a Bishop or Preacher erreth or teacheth perverse Doctrine Lord. Herb. Hist p. 536. come and declare it to some of our Council or to us to whom is committed by God the high authority to reform and order such causes and behaviours and be not Judges your selves of your fantastical Opinions and vain Expositions Here making his Council or himself Judge of the Bishops Doctrines And those words in King Henry the Eighth's Proclamation 1543. made for the eating of White-Meats Milk Butter Eggs heese in Lent where he saith That the meer positive Laws of the Church may be upon considerations and grounds altered and dispensed with by the publick authority of Kings and Princes In Fox pag. 1104. whensoever they shall perceive the same to tend to the hurt and damage of their people Vnless perhaps he restrain damage here to Civil Affairs Contrary to the Eighth Thesis And those words in Cromwell's Speech when he presided as the Kings Vicar-General over the Clergy assembled to state something in Controversies of Faith then agitated betwixt the Roman Church and Lutherans who told them That His Majesty would not suffer the Scripture to be wrested and defaced by any Glosses Fox p. 1078. any Papistical Laws or by any Authority of Doctors or Councils By which if this be meant that we are not obliged to embrace the Doctrine of Scriptures according to those Determinations and Expositions which lawful Councils have made of them it is contrary to the Fourth and Seventh Thesis and overthrows the Government of the Church See the same thing said on the Kings behalf by the Bishop of Hereford against other Bishops urging the Doctors of the Church Fox p. 1079. I will conclude with what Bishop Carleton in Jurisdict Regal and Episcopal Epist dedicat § 37 And Calvin upon those Words in Amos 7.13 Prophecy not any more at Bethel for it is the Kings Court say of these times Bishop Carleton relateth out of Calvin That Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester being at Ratisbon in Germany upon the Kings Affairs and there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that Title Supreme Head of the Church given to Henry the Eighth taught that the King had such a power that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine and abolish old As Namely ' That the King might forbid the Marriage of Priests and might take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in such things might appoint what he list And there likewise Bishop Carleton confesseth That when Henry the Eighth took this Title of Supreme Head c tho the sounder and more judicious part of the Church then understood the words of that Title so as that no offence might justly rise by it I suppose he means in that sense as himself takes it which is For the King to have a Jurisdiction Coactive in External Courts binding and compelling men by force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments to what the â—hurch in Spiritual matters defines For this Bishop saith that the Church is the only Judge of such matters See before p. 4. and in his whole Book written purposely on this Subject I do not find that he gives the King any Coactive Authority in Spiritual matters against any definition of the Church Yet saith he they that were suddenly brought from their old Opinions of Popery not to the love of the Truth but to the observance of the Kings Religion received a gross and impure sense of these words But this gross sense is such as Bishop Gardiner
agree that the Bishop shall practice exercise or have any manner of Authority Jurisdiction or Power within this Realm but shall resist the same at all times to the uttermost of my power And I from henceforth will accept repute and take the Kings Majesty to be the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England And to my Wit and uttermost of my Power I will observe and defend the whole Effects and Contents of all and singular Acts and Statutes made and to be made within this Realm in derogation extirpation and extinguishing of the Bishop of Rome and his Authority and all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made in Confirmation and Corroboration of the Kings Power of the Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England c. Here is the Clergy tied to swear as to all Acts of the Civil Power already past so indefinitely and beforehand to all also that are to come which may derogate any thing from the Popes power or add to the Kings in Spiritual matters as if no bounds or limits at all were due thereto § 43 Again in the Sixth Year of King Edward the whole Synod of the Clergy if we may credit the relation of Mr. Philpot See Fox p. 1282. in the Convocation 1. Mariae did grant Authority to certain persons to be appointed not by them but by the Kings Majesty to make Ecclesiastical Laws where it seems to me somewhat strange that the Synod should now de novo give to the King what was before assumed as his Right And accordingly a Catechisme bearing the name of the Synod was set forth by those persons nominated by the King without the Synods revising or knowing what was in it tho a Catechisme said Dr. Weston the Prolocutor 1. Mariae full of Heresies This Book being then produced in Convocation and denied by the Synod to be any Act of theirs Philpot urged it was because the Synodal Authority saith he was committed to certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary Which Argumentation of Philpots seems to be approved by Dr. Fern in Consid upon the Reform 2. chap. 9. sect Here then the Synod grants Authority in Spiritual matters that they know not who shall in their name establish that which they please without the Synods knowing either what Laws shall be made or who shall make them which is against the First and Second Thesis and is far from adding any just authority to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of those times or to any Acts which are thus only called Synodal because the Synod hath in general given away their Power to those who make them afterward as themselves think fit Whereas to make an Act lawfully Synodical the Consent of the Clergy must be had not to nominate in a Trust which Christ hath only committed to themselves in general another Law-giver viz. the King or his Commissioners for thus King Edward will choose Cranmer and Ridley and Queen Mary will choose Gardiner and Bonner to prescribe Laws for the Church but to know approve and ratify in particular every such Law before it can be valid § 44 Besides these Acts of Parliament and Synod the manner of Supremacy then ascribed to the Prince yet further appears in the Imprisonment of Bishop Bonner in the First year of King Edward for making such an hypothetical Submission as this to the Kings Injunctions and Homilies then by certain Commissioners sent unto him I do receive these Injunctions and Homilies See Fox p. 1192. with this Protestation that I will observe them if they be not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and the Statute and Ordinance of the Church the fault imputed here to him I suppose being that he refused to obey any Injunctions of the King when repugnant to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church for which Fox calls this Protestation Popish But the manner of this Supremacy appears yet more specially in the several Articles proposed to be subscribed by Bishop Gardiner § 45. n 1. upon his refusing to execute or submit to divers particular Injunctions of King Edward in Spiritual matters imposed upon the Clergy the Subscription required of him was To the Book of Homilies affirmed to contain only godly and wholsome Doctrine and such as ought by all to be embraced To new Forms of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and to the denyal of Real Presence or of Transubstantiation if any thing in that Form may may be said to oppose either of these To the new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests To the disannulling and abolition of the former Church Liturgy and Canon of the Mass and of the Litanies to Saints and Rituals of the Church To the abolition of Sacred Images and Sacred Relicks To the permission of Marriage to the Clergy To the acknowledging that the Statute of the Six Articles was by Authority of Parliament justly repealed and dis-annulled To the acknowledging that the appointment of Holy-days and Fasting-days as Lent and Ember-days and the dispensing therewith is in the Kings Majesty's Authority and Power as Supreme Head of the Church of England To the acknowledging that Monastick Vows were Superstitious and the Religious upon the dissolution of their Monasteries lawfully freed from them as likewise that the suppressing and dissolution of Monasteries and Convents by the King was done justly and out of good reason and ground For all which see the Copy of the Second and of the Last Articles sent to Bishop Gardiner in Fox p. 1234 and 1235. In which Articles the Kings Supremacy is thus expressed in the Second of the First Articles sent to him That his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church of England hath full Power and Authority to make and set forth Laws Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion and Orders in the said Church for repressing of all Errors and Heresies and other enormities and abuses so that the same alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scripture and Law of God as is said in the Sixth of the Second Articles sent to this Bishop Now how far this repressing and reforming of Errors c. claimed by the King did extend we may see in those points but now named In the Fifth That all Subjects who disobey any his said Majesties Laws Injunctions Ordinances in such matters already set forth and published or hereafter to be set forth and published ought worthily to be punished according to his Ecclesiastical Law used within this his Realm Again in the 7.11 12.14.16 of the Third Articles sent to the same Bishop That the former Liturgies of the Church Mass-Books c that the Canons forbidding Priests Marriage c are justly taken away and abolish'd and the new Forms of Common-Prayer and of Consecration of Bishops and Priests are justly established by Authority of Parliament and by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm and therefore ought to be received
pro suâ pietate efficere dignentur ut ea quae ad jurisdictionem nostram libertatem Ecclesiasticam pertinent sine quibus debitum nostri pastoralis officii curae animarum nobis commissae exercere non possumus nobis superiorum temporum injuriâ ablata restituantur ea nobis Ecclesiae perpetuò illaesa salva permaneant ut omnes leges quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem libertatem Ecclesiasticam tollunt seu quovis modo impediunt abrogentur ad honorem Dei c. Which Rights how welcome they were to them when now regained in Queen Mary's days we may guess from their former complaint in the beginning of King Edward's days where we see how much they grieved when they saw them lost Sanders 2. l. p. 244. adds also that at this time Singuli Episcopi uno tantum Landaffensi excepto peculiariter petierunt à sede Apostolicâ veniam prioris gravissimae culpae See before §. 47. confirmationem in suo cujusque Episcopatu Lastly in the same Statute it is concluded That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Ordinaries should be in the same State for process of Suits punishments of Errors and execution of Censures of the Church with knowledge of Causes belonging to the same and as large in these Points as the said Jurisdiction was in the Twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth § 51 After these Statutes see to the same purpose the Synod held presently after the Coronation of Queen Mary Aâ—d the Church Doctrine under King Edward condemned before the introduction of any new Bishops save only some of those that were ejected in King Edward's Reign In which Synod the Bishop of London presided the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury having been about a Month before by the Council committed to the Tower for Treason for which he was some Two Months after condemned but afterward pardoned by the Queen In this Synod Fox saith p. 1282. that the whole House of Convocation Fox p. 1698. except Six persons did immediately assent and subscribe to the natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar and Transubstantiation and to the renouncing of the Catechisme put forth in the latter time of King Edward in the name of the Clergy and of the new Book of Common-Prayer these things being proposed to them by the Prolocutor At which time saith he Mr. Philpot Arch-Deacon of Winchester was as it were astonied at the multitude of so many Learned Men as there were on purpose gathered together to maintain old Traditions rather than the Truth of Gods Holy Word After this Synod see in Fox p. 1294. §. 52. n 1. the Eighteen Articles sent by the Queen to the Bishops but these Articles such as only enjoyned them the observance of former Church Constitutions from which the late Innovations had disobediently deviated commanding them to see to the Observance in their Diocesses of the Church Canons used in the time of Henry the Eighth securing them herein from the incurring any danger from the Laws of the Realm see the 1. Act. The Second of which Articles requires them to omit in their Writs Regiâ authoritate fulcitus The Third not to require the Oath of the Queens Supremacy in their admission of any into Church Preferments The Fourth excludes Sacramentaries from all Ecclesiastical Functions the Synod held in October before having declared against them The Seventh excludes according to the former Church Canons all married Persons from Ecclesiastical Promotions The Ninth appointeth the Divorce of married Monks and other Religious Persons who had formerly taken the perpetual Vow of Continency and the rest are to renew some or other former order of the Church Lastly see the Retractation made by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days confessed by Mason de Minist §. 52. n. 2. 3. l. 4. c. Regnante Mariâ alia Episcopis mens alius animus fuit i e. concerning Supremacy To which all that he answers is this Eorum subsecuta inconstantia confessionis prioris soliditatem abolere non potuit Quamvis sententias revocarunt suis tamen ipsorum argumentis non satisfecerunt But however that he will not grant the Kings Supremacy I mean in such a sense as it was then maintained to have been confuted by the Bishops reasoning yet he grants it to have been revoked so much as in them lay by their Authority § 53 The only thing which can here be questioned is whether this Clergy in Queen Mary's days That Queen Mary's Clergy was a lawful Clergy who in their following Synods abrogated the Acts and Concessions of the Clergy's former Synods in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's days were a lawful Clergy Which if they be now note that they will also be so in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days when also they opposed her Reformation Now it is questioned whether they were a lawful Clergy α α because many of King Edward's Bishops were in the beginning of this Queenâ—s Reign ejected β β and some also burnt for Hereticks and others put into their places γ γ whilst some of them were living and so those Sees not vacant δ and δ that without the consent of the Metropolitan who for the three first Years of Queen Mary was Cranmer without which Metropolitan's consent the Ordination of any Bishop in his Province was unlawful See Can. Nicen. 4. Can. Apostol 35. Now these Bishops are numbred by Fox to have been then ejected Pag. 1289. Cranmer from Canterbury Holgate from York Ridley from London Poynet from Winchester Hooper from Worcester he might have said from Glocester too for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the Sixth's time held both these Sees together in Commendam and for Worcester See Godw. Annal. An. Dom. 1555. Latimer then living had been Bishop thereof in King Henry 's days out of which for Non-conformity to the Six Articles he was ejected or for fear resigned it and was imprisoned in the Tower till King Edward 's time yet for what reason I know not could never then be restored to his Bishoprick Barlow from Bathe Harley from Hereford Taylor from Lincoln but this was by death not by the Queen as appears in Fox p. 1282. Ferrars from St. Davids Coverdale from Excester Scory from Chichester Besides these I find two more mentioned by Mason de Minist p. 248. Bush from Bristol and Bird from Chester Of which Bishops Mr. Fox saith p. 1280 Five were put out that the former Possessors of those Bishopricks might be restored Bonner to London Gardiner to Winchester Day to Chichester Heath to Worcester but Heath was afterward translated to York in Holgates room and Pate to Worcester in Hoopers room Vesy to Excester Besides which Tonstal was restored to Durham a Bishoprick which after Tonstal's Imprisonment was first kept void in King Edward's days and at last by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue § 54 Now in Vindication of the
sunt prorsus abroganda censuimus Quorum loco en vobis authoritate nostrâ editas leges damus quas a vobis omnibus suscipi coli observari volumus sub nostrae indignationis paenâ mandamus Thus the King Where the meaning of the words decreta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt must be extended to Decrees not only Pontifical but Synodal wherein the Pope presided for the Canon-Law is compiled of both these and over both these did the Kings Supremacy claim Authority in his Dominions and over whatsoever else seemed to him established not by Divine but only by Humane Authority See before § 22.23.27 And also the things changed by him were not the Decrees of Popes but of Councils § 80 By vertue of such a Supremacy he put forth certain Injunctions A. D. 1536. concerning matters of Faith Intitled Articles devised by the Kings Highness to stable Christian quietness and unity amongst the People you may read them set down at large in Mr. Fuller's Church History 5. l. p. 216 for Mr. Fox his Epitome of them conceals many things It is true that these Articles as also the Six Articles published afterward 1539 and the Necessary Doctrine set forth 1543. do for the matter of them as they seem to me discede in nothing from the Doctrines of former Councils nor have nothing in them favouring the reformed Opinions for they allow Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory kneeling and praying before tho not to Images the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Auricular Confession and do not deny Seven Sacraments as some misrelate them because they speak only of Three which Seven Sacraments are all acknowledged and treated on in Necessary Doctrine c. And it cannot be denyed that the Clergy of King Henry also whom he used much more than his Successors King Edward and Queen Elizabeth in his Consultations concerning Religion were except in the introducing of the Kings Supremacy very opposite to the Reformation of other Doctrines or Ceremonies in the Church as appears by the Mala dogmata transcribed out of the Records by Mr. Fuller 5. l. p. 209. to the Number of 67. much agreeing with the Modern Tenents of Puritans Anabaptists and Quakers which Mala Dogmata being by the Lower House of Convocation at this time presented to the Upper House of Bishops to have them condemned occasioned the production of these Injunctions But yet notwithstanding all this for the manner of the Edition of these Injunctions or Articles it is to be noted that the King by vertue of his Supremacy commands them to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judged by him agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God and makes the Clergy therein only his Counsellor and Adviser not a Law-giver See besides the Title his words in the Preface to those Injunctions Which determination debatement and agreement of the Clergy saith he forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good right and true judgment and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God we have caused the same to be published requiring you to accept repute and take them accordingly i. e. as agreeable to Gods Laws and Ordinances So where in these Injunctions he commandeth the Observation of Holy-days he saith We must keep Holy-days unto God in Memory of Him and his Saints upon such days as the Church hath ordained except they be mitigated and moderated by the Assent and Commandment of us the Supream Head to the Ordinaries and then the Subjects ought to obey it such command § 81 By vertue of such a Supremacy he afterward published a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith In putting forth a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Sâ—x A ticles and of the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same for matter of Doctrine not much differing from the Injunctions mentioned before which Book he Entitled A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People adding a Preface thereto in his Royal name to all his faithful and loving Subjects That they might know saith he the better in those dangerous times what to believe in point of Doctrine and how to carry themselves in points of Practice Which Book before the publishing thereof after it saith Dr. Heylin Reform Chur. Engl. § 4. p. 23. was brought into as much Perfection as the said Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Learned Men appointed by the King to this work would give it without the concurrence of the Royal Assent was presented once again to the Kings consideration who very carefully perused and altered many things with his own hand as appears by the Book it self extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library and having so altered and corrected it in some Passages returned it to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Cranmer who bestowed some further pains upon it that being to come forth in the Kings Name and by his Authority there might be nothing in the same that might be justly reprehended For a Preparatory to which Book that so it might come forth with the greater credit the King caused an Act to pass in Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. for the abolishing of all Books and Writings comprising any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that Doctrine which since the Year 1540 is or any time during the Kings life shall be set forth by his Highness Thus Dr. Heylin Which Definitions Decrees and Ordinances so set forth by the King all his Subjects were fully to believe obey and observe 32. Hen. 8. 26. c. See before § 32. And if any Spiritual Person should preach or teach contrary to those Determinations or any other that should be so set forth by his Majesty such Offender the third time contrary to that Act of Parliament was to be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and to suffer pains of death by Burning See before § 34. By which Act therefore amongst other things the holding of the Pope's Supremacy which is contrary to the Doctrine of that Book is declared Heresy And see the like ordained by Parliament concerning the Six Articles in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. where it is Enacted That every Person that doth preach teach declare argue against any of the Six Articles being thereof convicted shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick § 82 And thus Heresy now belonging to the Kings Cognizance as the Church's Supream Head became also by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joyned with the Kings a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King 's Of their Cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but the adjudging of it And their Vote herein was joyned at least with that of the Clergy if not in Authority preferred before it as appears by these and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14 c. mentioned before § 34 and in the two Proviso's of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned
§ 70. And see the Reason given by Dr. Heylin why Parliaments which in former Ages abstained from them in this Age of Henry the Eighth began to intermeddle in stating of matters of Religion namely this reason A new Supream in Ecclesiastical Affairs then set up Engl. Reform Justified p. 41. Where he first relateth out of Walsingham how long since Wickleff having many Doctrines strange and new which he desired to establish in the Church of England and seeing he could not authorize them in a regular way addressed his Petition to the Parliament laying this down for a Position That the Parliament might lawfully examine and reform the Disorders and Corruptions of the Church and upon a discovery of the Errors and Corruptions of it devest her of all Tithes and Temporal Endowments till she were reformed But neither his Petition nor Position saith he found any welcome in that Parliament and then he goeth on thus To say truth as long as the Clergy were in Power and had Authority in Convocation to do what they would in matters which concerned Religion those of the Parliament conceived it neither safe nor fitting to intermeddle in such business as concerned the Clergy for sear of being questioned for it at the Church's Barr the Church being then conceived to have the just Supremacy herein But when that Power was lessened tho it were not lost by the Submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth and by the Act of the Kings Supremacy in matters of Religion which ensued upon it then did the Parliament begin to intrench upon the Church's Rights to offer at and entertain such businesses as formerly were held peculiar to the Clergy only next to dispute their Charters and reverse their Priviledges and finally to impose many hard Laws upon them Thus he Which Example of the Parliaments meddling with Opinions and stating of Heresy thus begun under Henry the Eighth's Church Supremacy hath made some Parliaments since also so active with the assistance of some Persons selected by them out of the Clergy of the same Inclinations in altering modelling establishing an Orthodox Religion and hath emboldened Mr. Prinn see Heylin p. 27. to affirm it an ancient genuine just and lawful Prerogation thereof to establish true Religion in this Church by which establishing if Mr. Prin means not judging of Truth and Error in matter of Religion but only requiring Obedience to the Judgment of the Church this is willingly granted to be an establishing duly belonging to that Supream Court. § 83 I have dwelt the longer on the Instances foremen tioned Where Codeer the complaâ—â—ts made by Pâ—testaats of his abuse of the Suprenacy that you may see when a Prince together with his particular Clergy or rather whom out of them he shall choose without these being linked in a due subordination to the whole claimeth such a power of composing Models of Christian Faith and declaring all those his Subjects Hereticks who do not believe and obey such his Determinations what danger what mutability Christian Religion incurrs in such a Nation as often as this Supreme and Independent Head is not every way Orthodox And so it happened in the Acts of this new-sprung Supremacy of Henry that those who much pleased themselves in it whilst it run the course they would have it in abating the former Power of the Clergy in throwing down Monasteries Religious Vows Relicks Images c yet afterward lamented it as much when necessity of the Kings compliance with Forreign Princes and the influence of new evil Counsellors saith Fox p. 1036. made the same Supremacy produce a contrary sort of Fruit which they could not so easily digest I mean the Six Articles here also pronouncing Heresy to the Opposers and punishing the same with Fire and Faggot and the Prohibition and suppression of many Godly Books as Mr. Fox calls them but full of Errors and Heresies as the Supream Head of this Church and also as Arch-Bishop Cranmer whose Declaration against them see in Fox p. 1136. then judged them some of the Contents of which Godly Books as they were then collected by Cranmer and other Prelates you may see in Fox ibid. and the Prohibiting all Women Artificers Husbandmen c from reading the Scriptures of which more anon § 84 Which Supremacy so ill used as he thought forced from Mr. Fox that sad complaint both in particular concerning the Kings imposing of the Six Articles p. 1037. That altho they contained manifest Errors Heresies and Absurdities against all Scripture and Learning whereby we may see how these Supream Heads also may deviate from the truth and how dangerous it is to commit the Reformation of all Errors and Heresies into their hands who by this Power instead thereof may enjoyn Errors and Heresies and that even against all Scripture and Learning as Henry the Eighth tho a Scholar is here supposed to have done and that even to pronouncing those Hereticks that do not submit to such Heresy he goes on Yet such was he miserable Adversity of that time and of the Power of Darkness yet King Henry said the times were full of Light that the simple Cause of Truth was utterly forsaken of all friends For every man seeing the Kings mind who was now the Legislator in Spirituals so fully addicted upon politick respects to have these Articles to pass forward few or none in that Parliament would appear who either could perceive that which was to be defended or durst defend that they understood to be true And also in general concerning that Kings managing his Supremacy p. 1036. from which Posterity might have learnt some wisdome To many saith he who be yet alive and can testify these things it is not unknown How variable the State of Religion stood in these days How hardly and with what difficulty it came forth what chances and changes it suffered even as the King was ruled and gave ear sometimes to one sometimes to another so one while it went forward at another Season as much backward again and sometime clean altered and changed for a Season according as they could prevail who were about the King So long as Queen Anne lived the Gospel had indifferent Success Here then the Supream Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and managed the Affairs of Religion accordingly After that she by sinister Instigation of some about the King was made away the course of the Gospel began again to decline but that the Lord stirred op the Lord Cromwel opportunely to help in that behalf who did much avail for the increase of Gods true Religion Here then the Supream Head of the Church was directed by a Laick and managed Religion accordingly and much more had he brought to perfection if the pestilent Adversaries maligning the prosperous Glory of the Gospel had not supplanted his vertuous Proceedings Mr. Fox names not Cranmer amongst these Worthies because he was an Agent in many of those Proceedings of Henry the Eighth which
we will say that the English only are in such faults incurable Neither can it be pleaded That such Lands are given to pious uses with such a tacit condition That when abused they may be recalled so long as these abuses are some other way remediable for else what thing is there dedicated to Gods Service which some Possessors do not at some time abuse But if it be said that the abuse and fault lies chiefly in the very Institution and Laws themselves of such Foundations Yet are these Laws also capable of being rectified and reformed so as God may be holily served in such a Monastick life as the Protestants themselves say he was in the Primitive times But if the Monastick Laws here were so corrupt how come the very same Laws abroad not to produce the same fruit in Nations said to be more inclined to such Vices How come those Houses there to this day to be not only tolerated but reverenced Or how happened under the same Laws here but three or four Years before in the great Monasteries Religion Thanks be to God to be right well kept and observed Stat. 27. Hen. 8.28 c. But suppose the King had questioned the lawfulness of these Institutions yet was he no competent Judge thereof it being a Theological Controversy and decided on the other side by the lawful judge thereof in several Superior Councils as is shewed in Discourse of Celibacy But indeed that which leaves the King the more destitute of any Apology in this kind is that whereas the chief fault charged upon these cloistered People was Incontinency the King whilst he took away these Orders did justify this Vow at least of perpetual Chastity to be a Vow lawful and by every one observable as you may see in the fourth of the six Famous Articles and still did prohibit all such Persons as had taken this Vow when in Monasteries from marrying afterward when they were ejected condemning the Transgressors hereof to suffer death The Words of that fourth Article are these That the Vows of Chastity or Widow-hood by man or woman made to God advisedly i. e. as I suppose deliberately or if you will with the approbation of our Spiritual Father ought to be observed by the Law of God and that it exempteth them from other liberties of Christian People which without that Vow they might enjoy The Penalty of which Article was That if any after a Vow advisedly made did marry in so doing he should be adjudged as a Felon and lose both Life and forfeit Goods without any benefit of Clergy See Fox p. 1037. Now if any can make this Vow advisedly I see not how we can say that the Monks do not so unless you will say That any Breach of a Vow argues it not to have been formerly made with advice but then why are these Religious expresly restrained afterward from Marrying Stat. 31. Hen. 8.6 c. where also advisedly seems to be interpreted the vowing after One and Twenty Years old uncompelled As for the falsification of Miracles to discover and publish the Cheat is sufficient to cure the present Fault and to prevent the like and when the Images were taken away the Houses needed not to be pulled down § 96 And as unexcusable seems the King to be in taking away Chaunteries c given for the relief of the faithful deceased with some Imperfections by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and annual Alms and Prayers offered to God for them whilst he allowed a benefit in these things and himself left the like Pensions and ordered that the same things of which he had deprived others deceased should be done for himself when deceased as you may see at large in his Will transcribed by Mr. Fuller And therefore whereas Edward the Sixth had these things given him again by Parliament because Henry the Eighth dyed not long after the Donation upon this reason because the Opinions of Purgatory and Masses satisfactory to be done for them that be departed were vain and superstitious Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. Yet so it was that other causes and other grievances than these were glad to be invented to make way for King Henry to lay hands on them Stat. 37. Hen. 8.4 c. § 97 Fourthly 4. If it be said that the Religious themselv voluntarily resigned these Possessions into the King's hands See Stat. 31. Hen. 8.13 c. Yet was this Act of their's supposed never so free from Compulsion invalid because they could not give away for ever what they had Title to only for term of Life neither yet could they alienate them for their lives from that use to which they were dedicated without committing Sacriledge § 98 Fifthly Lastly That which is said 5. of an excessive number of them in this Nation if it be a just Apology for taking away some the Supernumerary yet will it be none for taking away all the rest And that which follows concerning their averseness to the King's Reformations is granted and shews indeed that the demolishing of them was to good purpose for attaining the Kings ends but it shews not that the demolishing therefore of them is lawful unless first such ends be justifiable and secondly cannot otherwise be compassed And thus much of the Kings destroying Monasteries § 99 By vertue of such a Supremacy by which he was conceived to have Power to dispense with any In the dispeasing with the former Church Canous conMarriages Fasts Holy-days c. if only humane tho Ecclesiastical Constitution See Stat. 25. Hen. 8.21 recited before § 27. He made Orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage against the former Ecclesiastical Canons See Stat. 32. Hen. 8.38 c. where it is said By this Act we i. e. the King and Parliament do declare all persons to be lawful that be not prohibited by Gods Law to marry Of which Licence saith Fuller Chur. Hist 5. l. p. 236. the King himself had the first fruits in marrying Katherine Howard Cosen-German to Anne Bullen his second Wife And you may find in the Preface of the same Act this urged also as a motive of casting off the Pope's usurped Power in such matters That King Henry was otherwise by Learning taught than his Predecessors in times past long time have been For King Henry was designed by his Father for a Church-man and during the life of his Elder Brother was educated in Learning and not unstudied in School Divinity Lord Herbert's Hist p. 2. Therefore in the first Articles of Religion which he put forth 1536 which were devised by the King himself and so recommended to the Convocation house by Cromwel part of which House saith Lord Herb. p. 405 leaned to the Lutheran Doctrine and Rites he took pains to peruse and moderate their Arguments on either side adding Animadversions with his own hand as may be seen in the Records And in the second Articles of Religion called a Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People published 1543. he carefully perused them saith
be changed he confessed both that they were ancient and might in some manner be inculpably used but yet thought it better that they should be removed 1. because not appointed in Scripture by word or example 2. because they might be or also had been abused'to superstition 3. because the Church should partake as little as might be of the same usages with Anti-Christ Bucer Censur in Ordinat Eccles Angl. p. 458. 467. c. § 179 Upon such exceptions taken at the Liturgy as well from abroad as also by some of the preciser sort at home saith Dr. Heylin Reform Justif p. 31. and Hist of Reform p. 107. and because there had risen divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the said Service rather by the curiosity of the Minister and mistakers than of any other worthy cause saith the Act of Parliament it self 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. which shews what a good opinion they had of the former Book It was committed to be new corrected but by what persons we know not The Act without any such Encomium of these Reviewers as of the first Composers faith only That the King caused it to be faithfully and godly perused explained and made fully perfect Perhaps it was corrected which is one of Dr. Heylin's conjectures See before § 42. by those who were appointed by the King about this time to compose a Form of Ordination which Form the Act joined with this new Service-Book But it could not be done by the same persons that composed the former at least not by all of them because Day before this was ejected out of his Bishoprick and two more Shyp and Holbeck as I think before this deceased and Harley and Taylor were chosen their Successors The thing matters not much-Thus corrected it was presented to the Parliament and it only by them authorized to be used § 160 Which second Form besides casting out several other things that were retained in the former Among the rest Prayer for the dead and several expressions that seemed to â—â—ser the Reaâ—or Corporal Preseace in the Eucharist as the Commemoration of Saints and Prayer for the dead many Rites in the Administration of Baptisme the liberty of extream Vnction the Oblation and Prayers in the Communion which were made immediately after Consecration spoken-of before § 148 149. above all seems to have taken a vigilant special care for the altering and removing out of the former Form all those passages Which might argue any real or corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ whether it be by Trans or Con-substantiation or any other way with the Symbols Whereas therefore in the Prayer of Consecration these words are in the Missal Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini Nostri Jesu Christi and so in the first Form of King Edward these words Hear us O Merciful Father we beseech the and with Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bl ✚ ess and sanc ✚ tify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread md Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Both the Missal and that Form ordering the person consecrating at this time to take both the Bread and the Cup into his hands Instead of this the second Form is thus changed Hear us O Merciful Father we beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood omitting also the Priests touching or handling the Pattin or Chalice which is done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. Whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols of which also Bucer saith p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quicquam his elementis adesse Christi extra usum praebitionis receptionis For the same reason it seems to be that the Glory be to God on high c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum Corda the one is transferred after the Communion and the other omitted Likewise whereas in the administring of these Mysteries the Missal useth this Form Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aternam and so also the first Book of King Edward the Second as it were against the apprehending of any Real Presence to the Symbols or any oral feeding on that Body removeth those words and placeth instead thereof only these Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thankgiving Again Drink this in remembrance c So whereas it is said in the first Form in the Player of humble access Grant us so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries the second omits in these holy Mysteries Likewise at the end of the Communion-Service is added this Rubrick declaring that kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament is required for a signification of the humble acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy receiver and not for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or in regard of any real or essential Presence of Christ's natural Body and Blood Whereas it s ordained in the Administration of the Lord's Supper that the Communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion which thing is well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver and to avoid the profanation and disorders which about the Holy Communion might else ensue Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any Adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received or unto any real and essential Presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood For as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine they remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry And as concerning the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ they are in heaven and not here for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural Body to be in moe places than one at one time Thus that Rubrick thought fit to be omitted in the Common-Prayer-Book of Queen Elizabeth of which see the Reason below § 179. n. 2. Accordingly the Altar was changed into a Table the sides whereof were set North and South set near the Reading-place ordered at the Communion time to be covered with a fair white Linnen Cloth the other vestments prohibited save only a Surplice for a Priest and Rochet for a
the wiser sort resolved that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome lest they being Subjects should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince and take up the banner of Rebellion Thus Cambden Now the contention about the manner of disputing which Cambden omits was what side should speak last which the Bishops because of their dignity desired to do after having observed Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked But this the Queens Council would not yield to them the first agreement being pretended contrary and so that conference ceased After this Disputation followed the suppressing sect 179. n. 1. The Regâ—l Suâ—remancy and all that K. Edw. hâ—d done in the Refâ—rmâ—tioâ— now re-established by the Queen and Paâ—liament of the Mass of the Popes Supremacy of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigor by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy in all those spiritual Jurisdictions which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary and upon pretence that the Crown could not be supported with such honor as it ought to be if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembred from it all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary Besides which because there were many Impropriations and Tithes by dissolution of Religious Houses invested in the Crown the Queen kept several Bishopricks void till she had taken into her hands what Castles Mannors and Tenements she thought good returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes but this an extended instead of the other old rent Bishopricks being thus kept void also in following times one after another upon several occasions saith Dr. Heylin till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it See his History of Queen Elizabeth p. 120 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. c. sect 179. n. 2. Again Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer but altered first in some things by eight Learned men all of the reformed party and non-Bishops to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen In which review saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Elizabeth p. 111. there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. see before § 160. The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it The Body of our Lord c. Take and eat lest saith that Author under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers Likewise the Rubrick about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground And to come up closer saith he to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood as also the Altar in the Queens own Chappel was furnished with rich Plate two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124. that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus Musick retained in the Church Festivals observed c. Thus Dr. Heylin And some such thing likewise was observed if you will give me leave to digress a little by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion both concerning Real Presence For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words Since as the Holy Scriptures testify Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the world It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out and concerning Church Authority and Church Ceremonies For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days being taken with the Geneva-way were when they returned great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Eâ—â—land and of Church-authority in general therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ' The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence Insomuch as when one of her Divines see Heylin's Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 124. had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complyed so far as to resort to the Mass see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist in answer to a Priest desiring her judgment therein are well known 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies and great Opposer of the Puritans see before § 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist p. 144. c. several of whom tho in such a scarcity of Divines she preferred in the beginning of her Reign as Sampson to be Dean of Christ Church Whittington to be Dean of Durham Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge c Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her And when Alexander Nowel Dean of Pauls had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression and to return unto his Text. Heyl. Hist. p. 124. But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queens days in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad and by Peter Martyr and others here at home and that tho some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived
such Supremacies upon the Crown Ham. Schis c. 7. p. 150. to prove that they belong not to the Pope as long as they may belong to the National Clergy and to Councils The qualification of such Regal Supremacy which Dr. Fern Examin Champ. p. c. § 16.20 hath produced as mitigating it see replyed to before § 72. And see himself if I mistake him not also defending such Regal Supremacy as is here affirmed to be claimed in the places quoted below § 205 and not only him but many other learned Protestant Divines And therefore well might those Bishops understand the regal Supremacy in the Oath in the same latitude as these still do allow and maintain it But see Mr. Thorndike Just Weights 20. c freely acknowledging what we have said here and desiring therefore the abrogating of this and the enacting of a new Oath It is manifest saith he that not only the unlimited power of the Pope but all authority of a General Council of the Western Churches whereof the Pope is and ought to be the chief Member may justly seem to be disclaimed by other words of the same Oath and that whereas the Pope usurped not only upon the Crown but upon the Clergy of this Kingdome all those Usurpations as welt upon Clergy as King are by the Act of resumption under Hen. 8. invested in the Crown So that when the Oath declares to maintain all Rights and Preeminences annexed to the Crown you may understand that maintenance which a Subject owes his Sovereign against those that pretend to force his just claim from Him But you may also understand that maintenance which a Divine owes the Truth in asserting the Title of the Crown to all Rights whatever now vested in it Which maintenance he that believes that some Rights of the Church are invested in the Crown ought not to undertake And again below There is an appearance saith he that the mis-understanding of this Oath hath produced an opinion destructive to one Article of the Creed viz. to the being of any Visible Church as Founded by God And besides it is not possible that all they who are called to this Oath by Law can ever be able to distinguish that sense in which they ought from that wherein they ought not to take it And therefore of necessity the Law gives great offence and that offence is the sin of the Kingdome and calls for Gods Vengeance upon it Therefore there is great reason why the Kingdome should enact a new Oath c. Thus He. § 185 2. For the second part of the Oath 2. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs how far it is to be acknowledged And therefore I do utterly renounce all Forreign Jurisdictions c You are first to note That from what is said before in the Oath that the Queens Highness is the only Supreme Governor in all Ecclesiastical things it followeth That so far as the Oath binds any to renounce all Forreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or Authority save the Queens that is for any such Jurisdiction in Spirituals as the Queen claimeth whether such Jurisdiction be challenged by the Pope or by a General Council for here none is excepted so far the Oath bindeth him also to renounce all Domestick Jurisdiction and Authority whether it be of the Arch-Bishops or Bishops or of a National Synod in respect of such Jurisdiction as is claimed by the Prince So that none who holdeth any such Jurisdiction in the Clergy at home as others put in the Clergy or some Prelate abroad may think that he escapeth the reach and power of the Oath because of the word Forreign inserted therein Having given you this pre-caution then that you swear as well against any Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or the National Synod of this Church as of the Pope or of a General Council concerning the Jurisdiction that is challenged by the Prince Now to consider the thing it self There may be such a Forreign or also Domestick Ecclesiastical Supremacy and Authority as no way opposeth the good of the Civil State nor any just priviledge of a Secular Prince but rather much corroborated and fortifieth it and again as mainly tendeth to the unity and peace of the Church which thro all the world is only one Corporation and Body And such Supremacy may be instituted and established either by our Saviour or by his Apostles or later Ecclesiastical Constitution as the varying State of the Church may stem to require Neither can an Authority thus established and relating only to Spiritual Affairs be justly disturbed or annulled by any Secular Governor neither Heathen as is granted by all nor Christian as there is more reason that he who is a Son and Subject of the Church should never do it as hath been she wed in Chur. Govern 1. Par. § 38. and Succes Cler. § â—â— Again there actually is such a Supremacy for some Spiritual matters by some of the former ways given to the Representative of the whole Church Catholick General Councils which have been hitherto Forreign and perhaps will always be so which Councils have a Jurisdiction and Authority over and whose Canons and Decrees do oblige particular Churches tho the Secular Magistrate dissent or oppose as the Emperor Constantius opposed the Nicene condemnation of Arianisme Secondly There is also given at least in the intervals of these Councils a Supremacy to the Bishop of the Apostolick See of Rome to whom also is committed the care of seeing to the execution of the Canons and Decrees of these General Councils in all particular Churches as hath been shewed in Chur. Gov. 1. Par. And such Supremacy was ratified by the Clergy of this Nation as formerly so in their late Synods under Qu. Mary and also under Qu. Elizabeth See before § 175. Art 4. which Synods stood in force at the imposition of this Oath Of these Supremacies thus Mr. Thorndike Due way of composing differences p. 7. It were a contradiction for the Church of England to pray for the Catholick Church and the unity thereof and yet renounce the Jurisdiction of the whole Church and the General Councils thereof over it self King James acknowledgeth the Pope to be Patriarch of the West that is Head of the General Council of the Western Churches And Thomas Lord Bishop of Winchester under Queen Elizabeth being demanded why we own him not so in effect Answereth bluntly but truly because he is not content with the Right of a Patriarch For should he disclaim the pretence of dissolving the bond of Allegiance should he retire to the Priviledges of a Patriarch in seeing the Canons executed the Schism would lye at our door if we should refuse it deny such his Patriarchship Thus He. Now whether upon ones demanding more than his right we may afterward lawfully deny him his right or for ever after swear that he hath no right judge you as likewise whether the General Councils have lost their right together with their
Head the Pope Again of the Supremacy of a General Council over particular Churches and so over this of England thus Bishop Bramhal Reply to Chalced. p. 293. upon the words in the Oath and that no Forreign Prelate hath c. A General Council which is no standing Court but an aggregate body composed partly of our selves i. e. of the Prelates of the Church of England is neither included here nor intended General Councils then it seems of which the English Prelates are a part have a Jurisdiction over a particular Church not subordinate to the Secular Governors thereof And if a General Council be once thus admitted I see not how the Head thereof will be totally excluded nor yet inferior Synods Thirdly There is a Supremacy in Spiritual matters Decisions and Decrees I mean as to an independance on the Secular Power for the exercising their office and enacting or divulging of such Decrees belonging to the Metropolitans and their Provincial Synods in all National or Provincial Churches if the First and Second Thesis above stand good § 186 To require therefore upon Oath an utter renouncing of any such Forreign That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops or also Domestick Clergy-Supremacy is not lawful But such was required of these Bishops as appears 1. by the express words of the Oath and 2. by the giving of all such Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by Any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power i. e. Forreign or Domestick had thitherto been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm to the Queen at the same time that this Oath was made See before § 70. And 3. by the practice of these times suitable Neither here are those Pleas good that one may take away a just authority from him who hath exercised an unjust for will Secular Princes admit this Rule concerning themselves Or that any small part of the Church Catholick if declining to joyn with the whole is not obliged to the Constitutions of the whole Or not later ages to the Constitutions of the former Or that no particular Church is tyed to the Constitutions of Superior Councils past or present in matter of Church Government or Discipline but only in matters of Faith Or See Church Gâ—v par 1. sect 38.40.59 2. Par. §. 63. 3. Par. §. 27. n. 2. that the Church of England hath not given her consent to such former Constitutions concerning such Church-Government as well as other Churches All which have been discussed in their places Now if these Bishops were thus unjustly ejected for refusing to take an unlawful Oath it follows Sac. Clerg §. that the Bishops succeeding them were unjustly introduced and consequently their Synodal Acts illegal and void § 187 To prevent which inference I find this pleaded by Dr. Fern Examin Champ. 2. c. p. 84. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be ejected on any other grouÌ„d so as to reader the Protestant Bishops a major part That had none of these Bishops been removed yet the Queens Reforming-Bishops in Synod would have made a major part For saith he α there were six Bishops remaining of King Edward 's and besides there were many Bishopricks actually void at Queen Mary's death which Bishopricks being supplyed by Queen Elizabeth there was no fear that the Popish Bishops who were very suddenly reduced to Nine by death or by quitting the Land should make the major part had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote Thus He. To which it is added by others β That no new Bishops had been elected into the vacant Bishopricks yet if so many only of these Queen Mary's Bishops should have been displaced as came into the Bishopricks of King Edward's former Protestant Bishops unjustly cast out the six remaining Bishops of King Edward with Landaff joyned to them would have out-numbred the remainder of Queen Mary's Bishops § 188 Reply to α But to these 't is easily replyed To α That 1. First it hath been shewed already That some of these six Bishops could not lawfully now act because justly removed from their Bishopricks in Queen Mary's days of the Suffragan Bishops See before §. 54. c. more by and by Secondly That Queen Elizabeth could not justly and legally supply the then vacant Bishopricks with any persons but such as the major part of her present Clergy which surely were Catholicks and would have admitted no other did first approve of consecrate and confirm Of which see what is said before in the Third Thesis and in the Church-Canons there-cited To which I will add the testimony of Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church 5. c. p. 248. c. The fourth Canon saith he of the Council of Nice requireth that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province sifieri potest Which Council because it cannot always be had therefore it is provided there that two or three may do the work the rest consenting and authorizing the proceeding And this is that which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in unity But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordination part not the unity of the Church cannot be preserved unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore it seemeth that there can no valid ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome Which tho done by three Bishops yet was the Foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by Sixteen Thus Mr. Thorndike § 189 To β. To β. 1. First that those may be lawful Bishops who come into the places of other Bishops whilst living if the other be justly ejected as King Edward's Bishops were Secondly That of the fifteen Catholick Bishops there were only four that came into the place of any Protestant Bishop living when he was first elected thereto namely Heath Bourne Christophorson See before §. 54. and Turbervile into the place of Holgate Barlow Scory and Coverdale For all of the rest Bonner Pate White Goldwell Watson Poole Scot Bayne Oglethorp Thirlby Tonstal succeeded either Catholick Bishops or Protestant Bishops deceased And those four Protestant Bishops were all married persons and so excluded by the Canon and three of them Holgate Barlow Coverdale married Monks But of the fifteen Catholick Bishops there were only two that came into the place of any Protestant Bishop when living which Protestant Bishop had not first entred into the place of a Catholick Bishop when living For Coverdale and Scory Protestants came into the Catholicks Day 's and Voicy's Bishopricks in King Edward's time whilst they living The truth of these things you may see in Godwins Catalogue of Bishops CHAP. XII The Canonical Defects of King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's new Bishops §
190 NOW instead of these Catholick Bishops expelled being all that then sate Concerning the defects of the Qu. Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days save only Anthony Bishop of Landaff whom Cambden calls the Calamity of his See and who I think can be much challenged by no side in Henry the Eighth's time in Edward the Sixth's in Queen Mary's in Queen Elizabeth's still acquiescing for his Religion on the Princes direction the Queen had onely six others surviving since King Edward's time out of whom to raise her new Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Scory Bishop of Chicester Coverdale of Excester Barlow of Bath two Suffragan Bishops of Bedford and Thetford and one Bale Bishop of Ossery in Ireland amongst whom was no Metropolitan and of whom but one was consecrated in Henry the Eighth's days the other five in King Edward â—s whose times were full of uncanonical Proceedings and liable to several exceptions Again two of which Bishops Scory and Coverdale in King Edward's time came as is said into Bishopricks not void Besides that on another account they as also Barlow were lawfully ejected in Queen Mary's days as being marryed persons two of them Barlow and Coverdale doing this contrary to the Canons both as Priests and as Religious The later of whom also going beyond-Sea in Q. Mary's days there turned Puritan as they are called and in the troubles of Frankford was one of the Opposers of the Common-Prayer-Book of England and after his return See Bishop Bramhal 's Consecrat of Protestant Bishops jâ—stified â—ollinsheâ—d p. 1309. 26. Heâ— 8.14 c. 1 2. Mar. 8. c. at the Consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker refused to wear an Episcopal habit as is found upon Record nor would resume his Bishoprick of Excester but to his dying day lived a private Preacher in London William Allen in the second year of Queen Elizabeth being made Bishop of Excester in his stead As for the Suffragan Bishops as they were in a way and manner differing from former times first set up by King Henry so were they put down again by Qu. Mary and quite laid aside under Queen Elizabeth § 191 This for the reformed Bishops that are said to remain from King Edward's days Concernâ—â—g the defect of the nâ—w Bishop Oâ—dained in Qu. Elâ—zâ—beth'â— days now touching the new ones who were made by Queen Elizabeth I think not fit to trouble my Reader here with an exact discussion of the validity of their Orders by reason of defects either in the Ordainers or the Ordained since such a discourse for the most part Scholastick disputing of the Character Matter Form Intention c. essentially required for the conferring of this Sacrament may better come out in a Treatise a part then interrupt this Historical Narration Concerning these new Bishops and Prieststhen I will briefly only observe two or three things whereof the first shall be the judgment and esteem the Catholick Church has made of these and the like Orders the second that tho these Orders be supposed valid yet were they certainly unlawful and against the Canons and moreover unprofitable yea noxious to those who conferred and received them As to the first sect 192. 1. the new Ordination grew so far suspected as deficient to Queen Mary that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one That touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders Fox p. 1295. after the new sort and fashion of Orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Bishop Bramhal indeed urgeth this following passage out of Cardinal Pool's Dispensation to prove Consecrat of Protestant Bishops justified 3. c. p. 63. that King Edward's new Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Mary's days by Cardinal Pool by the Pope confirming his Acts and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England Ac omnes Ecclesiasticas saeculares ceu quorumvis Ordinum Regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta â—â—m Ordines quaâ—â— Beneficia Ecclesiastica ceu alias Spirituales matâ—rias praetensâ supremitate authoritatis Ecclesiasticae Anglicanâ— licet nulliter de facto obtinuerint ad cor reversae peâ—â—onae ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus Beneficiis per nos ipsos ceu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in Domino dispensabimus From which words of the Cardinal the Bishop argueth That If King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations which was required by the Institution of Christ then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirm their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church Thus the Bishop But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument you may observe that the Cardinal very cautiously here First saith not dispensamus or recipimus in the present as he doth in every one of his other dispensings throughout the whole Instrument tho in matters uncanonical dispensamus relaxamus remittimus concedimus c. in the present Tense but here dispensabimus in the future And Secondly saith not singlely dispensabimus but recipiemus per nos ipsos seu deputatos which reception per nos seu deputatos was not necessary for a dispensation with a matter only uncanonical And Thirdly saith not recipiemus simply but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt referring to the manner of the reception which had been used formerly in this Queen's days which we find set down in the Queen's thirteenth Article viz. That such new ordained repairing to the Bishop and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders as they being before not ordered in very deed And this is the Reason why the Cardinal could not apply in this Instrument a present recipimus or dispensamus for these Ordines as he doth for other things tho here he ingageth to make good to every one such orders as they then bare the title of This is a sence of which the Cardinals words are very capable and seem also to favour and which accords well with the Histories of those times whereas that which the Bishop puts upon them makes them to contradict the publick actions and proceedings both before and after the passing of this act For that the Cardinal when Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Roman Bishops held not the Orders received by the new Form sufficiently valid quoad Characterem as it may be gathered from Queen Mary's thirteenth Article forecited and first considered no doubt by her Bishops so it is clear from the Bishop of Gloucester the Popes Legate his degrading Ridley
he saith Authoritate Rex propriâ resecare potest superstitiones quas sacerdotes ipsi tolerant but he saith not quas sacerdotes ipsi docent nen esse superstitiones Again p. 364. he speaks thus of a thing done In Israele praecipuae in re religionis partes penes Regem extiterunt vel uno hoc argumento quod per sacrae historiae seriem totam mutato novi regis animo mutata semper est facies religionis Nec Pontifices unquam vel praestare poterant ut fieret mutatio in melius vel ne fieret in pejus impedire And p. 368. Passim per fastos sacros quod in religione fit a rege fieri diserte dicitur Regis factum esse Pontificis haud unquam nisi ex Regis mandato But I hope he will not hence infer that summa religionis is not penes Pontifices if the Prince apostatizeth from the true Religion or that the Church Governors may do nothing contra Regis mandatum nor may oppose him and teach the people contrary to his Reformations where they judge that he reformeth not aright what did the Church-Governors for the first 300 years Especially since p. 377. which I desire you much to mark he alloweth such Ecclesiastical Primacy as the good Kings of Israel used not to all but only to Christian Princes and to Christian Princes not all but only those not heretical and I suppose he would say also not schismatical for if the Prince were heretical or schismatical he well saw the mischief of such a power so he saith there Interim autem sit vel infidelis Princeps sit vel haereticus Oretur pro eo non minus quam pro Nebuchadonozar nemo vitae ejus insidietur non magis quam Ahasueri Fidem penes semet habeant Christiani subditi coram Deo caeteris in rebus pietatem colant Non ergo id agitur ut ecclesiae persecutores ecclesiae gubernatores habeantur c. And something toward this saith Mr. Mason de Minist 3. l. 5. c. if I rightly understand him Regibus qui vel non sunt christiani vel si christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen sancti primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid i. e. quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii none such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship unless the Author seek for some refuge in the Epithets rectus plenus illustris And the same saith Bishop Bicson When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of infidelity and heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which question he answers The Metropolitan Now if no Prince heretical tho Christian hath any Primacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs before we yield such Primacy to a Prince we must know whether he be not heretical and who can so rightly judge of this as the Church or Clergy And then will not the Church and is it not right to judge him such when he opposeth her present or former definitions in matters of Faith See Church Govern 3. Part § 42. And what just Supremacy then for matter of Doctrine is left here to the Prince but an authorizing by his coactive power the Church's decrees Which Regal Supremacy all sides allow But as I said this is contrary to what Bishop Andrews saith elsewhere that the Princes Supremacy may oppose the Clergy when they do i. e. when he thinks they do recedere de viâ non docere juxta legem Dei c. § 203 The fourth Author I shall produce is Mr. Thorndike who writing very rationally and resolutely in vindication of the Church's authority Of Mr. Thorndike as using his Pen against modern Sectarists yet takes care also to save the Phaenomena of the Reformation He therefore in his Right of the Church 5. c. p. 248. after he had with much freedome shewed That the Succession of the Clergy in such a Government as that the visible Communion of the whole Church might be perpetually kept in unity See before §. 188. was a Law ordained by the Apostles and That the Reformation made in England had plainly violated this Law in that the new Bishops that were introduced were made without and against the consent of the former some of his words are cited before § 200. taketh this course to solve this difficulty and to preserve the English Reformation notwithstanding this from being unlawful or schismatical To come then saith he to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continual Succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity of the Church c. But withal it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works c. which proceeding from the same if not a greater power than the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same religion and conscience as the succession of the Church Again I have shewed indeed that the secular power is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical in their determining all things which are not otherwise determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the power of the Church is trusted shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Here Mr. Thorndike holds that the Secular power may restore any law which Christ or his Apostles have ordained not only against a major part but all the Clergy and Governors of the Church and may for a penalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho they also be established by another Law Apostolical Which was the thing I undertook to shew you § 204 But to say something to this discourse of his What reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and the succession of the Clergy doth oppose Which Clergy sure will never confess such to be a law of our Lord but always will
power in things of which We our selves doubt not but they are purely Spiritual That there are some Powers merely Spiritual appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Prince no true Son of the Church of England will deny but now altho' the substance of those Powers be immediately from God and not from the King as those of Preaching Ordaining Absolving c. Yet whether these are not subject to be limited inhibited or otherwise regulated in the outward Exercise of them by the Laws of the Land and the Autority Regal is the thing quaestion'd This cannot perhaps be better exprest then in the words of the Reverend Bp. Sanderson The King doth not challenge to himself as belonging to him by Virtue of his Supremacy Ecclesiastical the power of Ordaining Ministers excommunicating scandalous Offenders or doing any other act of Episcopal Office in his own Person nor the power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments or doing any other act of Ministerial Office in his own person but leaves the performance of all such acts of either sort unto such persons as the said several respective powers do of divine right belong to viz. of the one sort to the Bishops and of the other to the Priests Yet doth the King by Virtue of that Supremacy challenge a power as belonging to him in the right of his * Episcopacy not prejud to Reg power p 22 Crown to make Laws as well concerning Preaching Administring the Sacraments and other acts belonging to the Function of a Priest as concerning Ordination of Ministers proceeding in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognisance in the Spiritual Courts and other acts belonging to the Function of a Bishop to which Laws as well the Priests as the Bishops are subject and ought to submit to be limited and regulated thereby in the Exercise of those their several respective Powers their claim to a Jus Divinum and that their said several powers are of God notwithstanding Now to apply this That the deciding Controversies of Faith and Excommunicating Offenders c. are the proper Province of the Clergy we deny not but that the indicting Synods in order to such Matters or making Laws to regulate the Exercise of them are purely Spiritual is not so undoubted as He would perswade us Again that the Spiritual Autority which is to be exercised in the Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions can be derived from none but those spiritual persons who were invested with that Autority and power of delegating it to others is willingly allow'd but that collation to Benefices can be the act of none but the Clergy will not be hence infer'd For the Spiritual Autority it self and the application of it to such an Object are very different things The power by which a Clergy man is capacitated for his Function is derived from the Bishop which ordains him but the applying this Power to such a Place the ordering that the Ecclesiastical Person shall execute that Autority which he deriv'd from the Church in such a peculiar part of the Kingdom is not without the reach of the Civil Jurisdiction and therefore Collation to Benefices in the sence this Author understands it should not have been reckon'd by him amongst those things of which it is not doubted but they are purely Spirituall Another power of which he abridges the Prince and by consequence would have to be esteem'd purely Spiritual is the deposing from the Exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy for transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons Now that the Secular Prince should have an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual matters to bind them by Temporal Punishments to the Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's determinations and decrees as he words it and yet that the Exercising this power their performing what they are obliged to by God should be without the reach of their Autority seems to me a paradox That the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times challeng'd such a power is plain from the undoubted testimony of the Learned Petrus de Marca * Cura principum Christianorum olim non solum Haereticorum furoros compressi contumacia Episcoporum aut Clericorum adversus Synodorum sententias rebellium ab externa potentia repressa sed etiam Principum studio prohibiti Episcopi ne legibus secularibus vel Canonibus violatis injuriam subditis inferrent De concord l. 4. cap. 1. par 2. Who tells us that by the care of Christian Princes Hereticks were represt the contumacy of Bishops and Clergy-men against the Decrees of Synods punish'd and Bishops restrain'd from oppressing their subjects by the violation of the Canons If we inquire how the Princes secur'd the Keeping of the Canons * Canonum custodiae duobus modis prospiciebant Principes tum delegatione Magistratuum qui vetarent ne quid contra Canones tentaretur tum exactis poenis à contumacibus si quid perperam gestum esset lb par 4. He tells us they did it by these 2 Methods 1st By delegating Magistrates to see they were observ'd 2ly By punishing those who were guilty of the breach of them And he particularly mentions Deprivation inflicted by the Secular power for violation of the Canons * In manifestissima violatione canonibus factam injuriam iis poenis Principes ulsciscebantur quae legibus irrogatae erant nempe expulsione à sede Deturbationem enim illam quae vacantem Ecclesiam redderet sui arbitrii esse putabant non autem regradationem vel dejectionem ab Episcopali dignitate quae erat poena mere Ecclesiastica Ib. par 6. For that they thought removal from the See within the reach of their Jurisdiction tho' not Degradation which is a punishment merely Ecclesiastical Which neither did the Reforming Princes ever think in their power to inflict And he * Ibid. there gives instances of Bishops so depriv'd And indeed this seems to be a Necessary branch of power which naturally flows from his being Custos Canonum which he is prov'd by this Author at large to be How far the Prince may abridge himself of this power by the laws of the Land I meddle not it suffices to shew that it is not originally a power merely Spirituall And from this and the former Instances the Reader will be able to judge the truth of that assertion That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal Come we now to that other assertion of his That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed States do forego to exercise Now if by the chiefest which he excepts he means preaching the word and administring the Sacraments Excommunicating and absolving neither do the Reformed States challenge the Exercise of these and as for others it will appear that the Princes of the Roman-Catholick
it remains therefore to examine whether he has been a more faithful Relator of our own History and what truth there is in his last Epistolary assertion that he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but what the Kings of England have foregone before Henry the 8th Now whatever in relation to a power in Spirituals is in this Discourse accus'd of Novelty seems easily reducible to these two Heads 1st A Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical denied to the Western Patriarch as appears by our Princes taking away all manner of Forreign Jurisdiction prohibiting all appeals to the See of Rome all Bulls from it and in generall all Intercourse with it 2ly The same Supremacy invested in the Sovereign as appears by King Henry's assuming the title of Head of the Church by the Kings making Ecclesiastical Laws by that Synodical act of the Clergy not to assemble or promulgate any Canons without his leave by that power granted to the King to visit Ecclesiastical persons and to reform Errours and Heresies by his collating to Benefices without consent of the Clergy and by hindring Excommunications in foro externo Now in Answer to this charge of Novelty It is confest that the Pope did for some Years usurp such a superiority but then as it is granted that he did de facto claim such a power so that it did de jure belong to him is denied and not only so but farther we affirm that he neither from the beginning challenged such a power nor was he afterwards in so full possession of it but that our Princes have upon Occasion vindicated their own right against all Papal or if he pleaseth Patriarchal Encroachments And here waving the dispute of right I shall confine my self to matter of Fact that being the only case here controverted Where 1st of the Supremacy of the Western-Patriarch That when Austin came over to convert the Saxons no such Supremacy was acknowledg'd by the British Christians is evident from the celebrated Answer of Dinoth Abbot of Bangor to Austin requiring such subjection Notum sit Vobis c. * Spelm. Conc. p. 108. Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every good pious Christian viz. to love every one in his degree and place in perfect Charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the Sons of God and for other Obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Vske who is to overlook and govern us under God This is farther manifest from the * Spelm A. C. 601. British Clergy twice refusing in full Synod after mature deliberation to own any such subjection That appeals to Rome were a thing unheard of till Anselms time appears from the application of the Bishops and Barons to him to disswade him from such an attempt * Inauditum in regno suo esse usibus ejus omnino contrarium quemlibet de Principibus praecipue Te tale quid praesumere Eadm p. 39.30 telling him it was a thing unheard of in this Kingdom that any of the Peers and especially one in his station should praesume any such thing That Legates from Rome were for 1100 Years unheard of in this Kingdom we may learn from a memorable passage in the same Historian concerning the Arch-Bishop of Vienna reported to have the Legantine power over England granted him A. C. 1100 * Quod per Angliam auditum in admirationem omnibus venit Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae Ead. p. 58. 41. The News of which being come to England was very surprizing to all people every one knowing it was a thing unheard of that any one should have Apostolical Jurisdiction over them but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury And the event of that Legacy was suitable * Quapropter sicut venit ita reversus est à Nemine pro Legato susceptus uec in aliquo Legati officio functus Ibid. for as he came so he return'd being taken by no one for a Legate nor in any thing discharging the office of a Legate That the Church of Canterbury own'd no Superiour Bishop to her own but Christ appears from her being call'd * Ger. Dorob Coll. Hist Angl. 1663. 24. Col. 1615. 60. Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione and in another place Mater omnium Anglicanarum Ecclesiarum quae suo post Deum proprio laetatur Pastore That appeals to Rome were prohibited in King Henry the 2ds time is manifest from the famous Capitula of Clarendon amongst which this is one Article If any appeals shall happen they ought to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop shall fail in doing Justice the last Address is to be made to the King That Doctrines prejudicial to the Popes power were then publickly maintain'd appears from these Propositions amongst others censur'd by Becket 1st That none might appeal to the See Apostolick on any account without the Kings leave 2d That it might not be lawful for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop to depart the Kingdom and come at the Popes Summons without the Kings leave 3d. That no Bishop might Excommunicate any who held of the King in capite nor Interdict his Officers without the Kings leave Which propositions so censur'd are selected out of the Capitula of Clarendon to the Observation of which all the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks even Becket himself amongst the rest tho' afterwards falling of had oblig'd themselves by a solemn Oath acknowledging them to be the customs of the King's Predecessours to wit Henry The 1st his Grandfather and others and that they ought to be kept inviolable by all To what party the Bishops were inclin'd in these differences betwixt the King and Becket we cannot better learn then from Baronius whose severe animadversion on these Praelates wherein he teaches us what Kings are to expect if they displease his Holiness and how dreadful his Fulminations be when they come out with full Apostolick vigour the Reader may peruse in the * Episcopi Angliae suffraganei Sancti Thomae literis ejusdem sui Archiepiscopi Apostolica legatione fungentis exagitati resilientes haud ut par erat parere mandatis salubres admonitiones suscipere Catholicae Ecclesiae utilitati consulere vendicantes eam à miscrrima servitute studuerunt sed ex adverso oppositi pro Rege contra ipsum scriptis verbis factisque repugnant ac tantum abest ut quod eorum muneris erat ad quod suis eos
and appointment But it is to be remembred that the Ecclesiastical Censures asserted to belong to the Clergie in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world but the censures here spoken of are such as have reference to the things of this world The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows we confess from their Ordination but the Actual exercise thereof in publick Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Autority for receiving of Appeals pag. 99. and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular but also from all the Clergy in general not making the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Convocation but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8.19 c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch or Spiritual Controversies but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion of deciding what is Gods word and divine Truth What are Errors in the faith or in the practise of Gods Worship and Service nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis Or if any such Quaestions should be involv'd in the Causes to be tried Why may not the Commissioners if Secular judge according to what has been praedetermin'd by the Clergy or let us suppose a case never yet determin'd How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transfer'd on secular Persons since if Occasion requir'd the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical But not only the Acts of State and Church but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examin'd by his Test and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin * Heylins Ref. Justified part 1. §. 6. p 240. that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the stamp of Royal Autority be imprinted on them Now it is plain to any one that views the Context that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual as hath influence on their Civil rights For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Autority But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent who only has the power of inflicting them Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis had he at so great a distance remembred it which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures which have reference to things not of this but the next World These are the Inferences which I find deduc'd from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse which had they been as conclusive as they are false yet I do not find but that his own party if that be the Roman Catholick had suffer'd most by them For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right what shall we think of that Roman Catholick Clergy who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had receiv'd from Christ what shall we think of those Pastours who so unfaithfully manag'd the Depositum of their Saviour If denying the Popes Authority was so piacular a Crime what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries who professing a more then ordinary Sanctity and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so * Burn Ref. l. 3. p. 182. resolutely abjur'd it What of those Learned in the * Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae zelo religione conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimos Interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi à Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259. Vniversity who after a solemn debate and serious disquisition of the cause so peremptorily defin'd against it What of the * Ref. l. 2. p. 142. Whole Body of the Clergy whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies Pag. 2. and to judge what is Gods Word and divine Truth § 2 what are Errors who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it What of the leading part of those Prelates Ibid. p. 137. Gardiner Bonner and Tonstal who Wrote Preach'd and Fram'd Oaths against it What of the Ibid. p. 144. Nobles and Commons Persons of presum'd Integrity and Honour who prepared the Bill against it What lastly of the Sovereign a declar'd Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine and Defender of the Roman Catholick Faith who past that Bill into a Law and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments If all these acted sincerely then it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed but of the Romanists which is written against If not we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Professors then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that which if it be any part is a main Article of their Faith But to return to our Author What shall we judge of his skill in Controversie who from Principles assum'd gratis draws Deductions which by no means follow and which if they did follow would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronize But because he has offer'd something under this first Thesis why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy I come now to consider it He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of
then a Church under persecution until Moses was rais'd up by God a Lawful Magistrate over them The cases are alike for all the world No Magistrate did assemble them in Aegypt and good reason why they had none to do it But this was no barr but when Moses arose authoriz'd by God had the Trumpets by God deliver'd to him He might take them keep them use them for that end for which God gave them to assemble the Congregation Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh or Constantine then Nero See also a Field of the Church l. 5. c. 52. Dr Field His Third Thesis is That the Secular Prince cannot b Soave Hist of Conc. Tr. Pag. 77. depose or eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy nor introduce others into the place of the ejected But the Quaestion here is not Whether the Prince can eject any of the Clergy from the Exercise of their Office but Whether he can depose any for not Exercising it While the Clergy faithfully discharge their Office the Prince ought to protect them and if for this they suffer no doubt but they are Martyrs But it is possible they may abuse their power and then it is to be enquir'd Whether Civil Laws may not inhibit them the Vse of it This Author holds the Negative and tells us 1st They cannot eject them at pleasure without giving any cause thereof But he doth not pretend that the Reforming Princes ever ejected any without a Cause given And therefore he adds 2ly Neither may Princes depose them for any Cause which concerns things Spiritual but with this Limitation without the consent of the Clergy I could wish he had here told us what he ment by things Spiritual For things as well as Persons Spiritual are of great Extent d Pope Paul the 3d told the Duke of Mantua that it is the Opinion of the Doctors that Priest's Concubines are of Ecclsiastical Jurisdiction But he gives us his reason for his assertion Because it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam as in Personam and the Prince as has been mention'd in the 1st Thesis has no Autority to judge such Causes purely Spiritual Now the power denied to the Prince in the 1st Thesis is to determine matters of Faith But may not the Prince judge whether an Ecclesiastick deserves Deprivation without determining a Matter of Faith May not he judge according to what has been already determin'd by the Church Or may not he appoint such Delegates as can determine matters of Faith Or are all the Causes for which a Clergy-man may be depriv'd merely Spiritual By Virtue of this Thesis he proves the Ejection of the Western Patriarch unlawful pag. 37. Now was not this Matter of Faith already determine by the Clergy Had they not unanimously decreed That he had no more Autority here then any other forreign Bishop And can the King be said here to have acted without the consent of the Clergy And yet that matter of fact is applied to this Thesis As for the Ejection of the Bishops in King Edward's time is not that confest to have been for not acknowledging the Regal Supremacy pag. 70. But this was a matter which wanted no new Determination for the Church-Autority had decided it in their Synod in King Henry's Reign But it is said the Judges were not Canonical as being the King's Commissioners part Clergy part Laity But neither was the cause purely Canonical for denying the Supremacy was not only an infringment of the Canon but also a Violation of an Act of Parliament As for the Bishops Bonner and Gardiner they were accus'd for not asserting the Civil power of the King in his Nonage Nor do they plead Conscience for not doing it but deny the Matter of Fact * Burn. His Ref. part 2. l. 1. p. 127. 165. The same Objections were then made against their Deprivation as are reassum'd by this Author now and therefore it may suffice to return the same answers That the Sentence being only of Deprivation from their Sees it was not so entirely of Ecclesiastical Censure but was of a mix'd nature so that Lay-men might joyn in it since they had taken Commissions from the King for their Bishopricks by which they held them only during the Kings pleasure they could not complain of their Deprivation which was done by the King's Autority Others who look'd farther back remembred that Constantine the Emp. had appointed Secular Men to enquire into some things objected to Bishops who were call'd Cognitores or Triers and such had examin'd the business of Coecilian Bishop of Carthage even upon an Appeal after it had been tried by several Synods and given Judgment against Donatus and his party The same Constantine had also by his Autority put Eustathius out of Antioch Athanasius out of Alexandria and Paul out of Constantinople and though the Orthodox Bishops complain'd of their particulars as done unjustly at the false suggestion of the Arrians yet they did not deny the Autority of the Emperors in such cases Ibid. p. 127. But neither is the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by this Author allow'd to be a proper Judge that because He did not Act by his Canonical Superiority in the Church but by the Autority he joyntly with the rest receiv'd from the King As if he had ever the less the power of a Metropolitan because He was also the King's Commissioner By this way of arguing the Decrees of Oecumenical Councils will be invalid because they were call'd to determine Controversies by the command of Emperors But how Uncanonical soever King Edward's Bishops are said to have been He does not except against Queen Mary's Bishops tho' they in depriving the Reformed acted by Commission from the Queen As for the Bishops ejected in Q. Elizabeth's time it has been already said it was for a Civil cause i. e. refusing the Oath of Supremacy which why it should be lawful in her Father's time and unlawful in her's why it should be contriv'd by Roman Catholics in that Reign and scrupled by the same Roman Catholics in this Why it should be inoffensive when exprest in larger terms and scandalous when mitigated whence on a sudden the Refusers espied so much Obliquity in that Oath which they had all took before probably either as Bishops or Priests in the reigns of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th whence this change of things proceeded unless from secret intimations from Rome or their own Obstinacy will not easily be conjectur'd As for his Note that what is sayd of the other Clergy may be said likewise of the Patriarch for any Autority which he stands posses'd of by such Ecclesiastical Canons as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government He has been often told by our Authors that Patriarchs are an Humane Institution That as they were erected so they
we ought to oppose the benefit she receives from the Protection of a good one Nor is it more true that Constantius an Arrian by his unjustly displacing the Orthodox Bishops procu'd Arrianism to be voted in several Eastern Synods then that the succeeding Emperors by justly displacing the Arrian Bishops procur'd the Nicene Faith to be receiv'd in succeeding Synods But for these mischiefe which a National Synod is liable to our Author has found out as he thinks a Remedy in his Fourth Thesis That a Provincial or National Synod may not lawfully make any definitions in matters of Faith or in reforming some Error or Heresy or other abuse in God's Service contrary to the Decrees of former Superior Synods or contrary to the judgment of the Church Vniversal of the present Age shew'd in her publick Liturgies But there is a Thesis in our Bibles which seems to me the very contradictory of this For saith the Prophet expresly * Hos 4.15 Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah Sin Tho' ten tribes continue corrupted in their Faith yet let the remaining Tribe take care to reform her self For that Judah had sinned and consequently was here commanded to reform is plain from the words of Scripture where it is said that * 2 King c. 17. v. 9. Judah kept not the Commandments of the Lord her God but walk'd in the Statutes of Israel which they made But this argument of National Councils reforming without the leave of General has been manag'd with so great Learning and Demonstration by Arch-Bishop Laud in his Discourse with Fisher and his Lordship's Arguments so clearly vindicated by the Reverend D. Stillingfleet that as it is great Praesumption in this Author to offer any thing in a cause which has had the Honour to have suffer'd under those Pens so neither would it be modest in me to meddle any farther in a Controversie by them exhausted I shall therefore proceed to his Fifth Thesis That could a National Synod make such Definitions yet that a Synod wanting part of the National Clergy unjustly depos'd or restrained and consisting partly of persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first threatned with Fines Imprisonment and deprivation in case of their Non-conformity to the Princes Injunctions in matters purely Spiritual is not to be accounted a lawful National Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such Regal Injunctions Now how this is pertinent to our case I can by no means conjecture For it has been shew'd that neither were the Anti-reforming Bps. unjustly depos'd nor the Reformers unjustly introduc'd But what he means by the Clergy's being threatned with fines imprisonment and Deprivation in case of their Non-conformity to the Prince's Injunctions may be learnt from another passage in his Discourse where he tells us that the Clergy being condemn'd in the Kings Bench in a Praemunire for acknowledging the Cardinal's power Legantine and so become liable at the King's pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and Confiscation of their Estates pag 26. did to release themselves of this Praemunire give the King the title of Ecclesiae Cleri Anglicani Protector Supremum caput Which Act saith he so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledges It is easie to believe that Nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it But here we have great reason to complain of the unpardonable praevarication of this Author in so foully misrepraesenting Dr. Hammond Which that it may be the more perspicuous and that the Reader may make from this Instance a true judgment of this Writer's sincerity it will be necessary to transcribe the whole passage as it lies in the Doctor Sch. c 7. §. 5. Though the first act of the Clergy in this was so introduc'd that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurr'd by them could probably have inclin'd them to it and 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 Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess their fear being the Occasion of their Debates but the Reasons and Arguments observ'd in debate the causes as in all Charity we are to judge of their Decision Thus the Doctor Now this Prevarication is the more culpable because it is not an Original but copied from Mr. Sergeant whom this Writer cannot but be praesumed to have known to have falsified it For Bishop Bramhal in whose writings we find him very conversant had detected this mis-quotation in Mr. Sergeant and severely Reprimands him for it His words are so applicable to our Author that I cannot excuse my self the Omission of them Bp. Br. Wor. Tom. 1. p. 360. He citeth half a passage out of Dr. Hammond but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong Dr. Hammond speaketh only of the first Preparatory Act which occasion'd them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodical way he applieth it to the subsequent Act of renunciation after debate Dr. Hammond speaketh of no fear but the fear of the Law the Law of Praemunire an Ancient Law made many ages before Henry the 8th was born the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Usurpations of the Court of Rome but Mr. Sergeant mis-applieth it wholly to the fear of the King 's violent cruelty Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammond's sense express'd clearly by himself that there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess the fear being the Occasion of their debates but the reasons or Arguments offer'd in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their Decision He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously This Author must be thought to have read these passages and yet ventured the scandal of promoting this Forgery tho' without the Honor of being the first Inventor of it Such practises as these require little Controversiall skill but much fore-head and we have seen a Machine lately publickly expos'd for this laudable Quality of imbibing whatever is blown into it's Mouth and then ecchoing it forth again without blushing Whether this be not our Author's Talent let the Reader judg as also what Opinion we ought to have of his Modesty who after all this has the confidence to desire us to read together with these his Observations on the Reformation Dr. Hammond of Sch. c. 7. the very Chapter whence this is cited least saith he I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable
of several times justified and condemn'd the same thing I am very well convinc'd tho' not from our Author's proof that the Pope stood not alone in his judgment For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion The Pope judg'd for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph when the Dispensation was procur'd from him but here in the 19th he judges against it But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles then his Passions or Interest And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when telling us in the same Page that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinc'd of the Unlawfulness of it but because at the same time he stood much in aw of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine He needed not therefore to have instanc'd in the different Opinions of diverse Men since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinc'd us that the several Interests of several times justifi'd and condemn'd the same thing Now to return to our Matter in hand So that it seems he has digress'd for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to shew that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses The aforesaid Summ of 100000 l spent upon the Vniversities abroad c. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie and I need say no worse of it § 20 The King he saith excepted at the Limitation of Quantum per legem Christi licet in the Title given him by the Clergy and so at last upon renew'd threats this Clause also was procur'd to be omitted See Antiquit. Britannic The Author knew or might have known that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken For Dr. Burnet a Hist V. 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observ'd that King Henry when the Province of York demurr'd upon granting the King the Title of Head as improper in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ Accordingly it is represented as pass'd with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif § 2. Historians He refers us again to Dr. Bailie But the Reader I presume has had enough of him already The excluding the Patriarch is he saith contrary to his 4th Thesis It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope They could find no grounds for the Papal Autority from Scripture Antiquity or Reason but they might perhaps have been convinc'd from our Author's Theses which are an Autority distinct to all those This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon it is because I would not gall him too much Cranmer is said to have divorc'd the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Autority out of his Dominions § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compar'd with p. 144. was pronounc'd in May 1533 and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following Cranmer in the Sentence is call'd Legate of the Apostolic See By this Instance it is plain how implicitely our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology as well as History Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat saith Sanders This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first propos'd c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declar'd it was contrary to the Law of God He induc'd d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it f Ibid. p. 38. He subscrib'd and perswaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it He earnestly prest Fisher to concurr and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops These are some of the favours which Warham shew'd to the Queen's Cause § 23 The Clergy having declar'd the King Supreme Head of the Church it seem'd reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head This is a wild and senseless Calumny the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Autority her Charter she derives immediately from Christ The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave but the execution of which they abridg themselves is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject and therefore necessarily requir'd the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power He cites from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner and allow'd by the Convocation to a Parliamentary Remonstrance But either my a Reform Just in the Historical Tracts Edit Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin or which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations this Author deceives me The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be review'd by 32 Commissioners § 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weigh'd by Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation and it is one of our Author 's pertinent remarks that they did not meddle with what was not reform'd The Reformation of the Canons was a design of which Nothing worse can be said than that it did not take effect If it trouble him that Canons contrary to the King's Prerogative Laws of the Land good of the Subject and Laws of God should be reform'd no Honest man can pity him If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers that has been spoke to by the b Animadv p. 36. Animadverter If by Canons Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation it is out of his wonted pride to outface the Statutes For the c Forasmuch as such Canons Constitutions and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm cannot now be view'd examin'd and determin'd by the King 's Highness and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 c. Act expresly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods and had no
extirpate Heretics upon pain of being themselves extirpated and if they will not be active must be passive It is farther observ'd that Protestant Princes as well as Catholic have thought fit to execute this Law upon Heretics He instances in Joan of Kent and George Paris burnt in Edward the Sixth's days But these suffer'd for Impieties directly against the Creed a B. V. 2. p. 111. Joan of Kent for denying that Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary b Ibid p. 112. George Paris for denying that he was God We have King Edward's c Ibid tears recorded which he shed upon signing the warrant for Joan of Kent's execution but I have not read of any tears shed upon that Occasion by Q. Mary Some other Anabaptists condemn'd and recanting were enjoyn'd to bear their Faggots But d Ibid. p. 111. the Opinions of these Anabaptists would have made an Anticreed to that of the Apostles and bearing the Faggot is ill oppos'd to the cruelty of that Reign when e Cranmer's case recanting did not exempt from burning In Henry the 8th 's time Cromwel pronounc'd Sentence on Lambert to be burnt I never read before that King Henry was a Protestant Prince Arch-Bishop Cranmer committed to the Counter Thomas Dob a Master of Arts who also died in prison The Consequence is that Protestant Princes burn Heretics In Q. Elizabeth's time Lewes and Hammond were burnt for Heretics Hammond's Impieties against God and his Christ were such as a Cambd. Hist of Eliz. p. 235. Edit Lond. 1675. Mr. Cambden will not mention but desires they may be buried in Oblivion Lewis was an Heretic of the same Magnitude Hacket was executed for Heresy and Blasphemy b Ful. Hist Book 9 â—h p. 205. Such blasphemies as might have been utter'd by a faln Angel Coppin and Thocker were hang'd for publishing Brown's book against the Common-prayer But c Stow's Chron. Q. Eliz. p. 696. that book full of Sedition against the State In King James's time Bartholomew Legate was burnt for an Heretic But d See his Opinions Full. l. 10. p. 62. he an Arrius Redivivus As for the Statute of King James An. 3. Jac. 4. c. it does not punish the reconcil'd as Heretics but as Traytors The Crime there reputed Treason is with-drawing the Natural Obedience from the Prince and none can suffer by that Act who takes the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Had the Writ de Haeretico comburendo lain as quiet as this Act We should not have reflected with so much horror on the Cruelty of the C. of Rome This instancing in a Statute made only in terrorem and never put in Execution tho' the demerits of some Apostates have been sufficiently provoking would tempt one to look back into the last Century and review the Treasons and Rebellions which extorted the making of that Statute but I forbear to pursue this Topick least too warm a zeal against the disloyalty of that party be it self interpreted dis-loyal § 66 Having shew'd us the Protestant's judgment concerning the justness of burning Hereticks he next gives us his own Sentiments The ignorant Laity and illiterate Clergy he in his great mercy rescues from the Faggot and condemns only to Poverty and Prisons This in Spain or Italy had been a great Act of grace but He might be sure few of our Laity or Clergy could plead the benefit of it The Fathers of the Church and Learned Sons of it are not mention'd in this Indulgence and there seems to be no reserve for them Indeed He had stretcht his kindness too far in favour of the Haereticis credentes and as if he repented confesses some of them to have been extremely arrogant and ignorant It provokes his Indignation that Mechanics should dispute with Bishops But the advantage these Mechanics had in the cause made amends for the imparity of the Advocates And after all Bonner and the Miller were not such unequal Disputants as He would perswade Us. They relied he saith on the uncertainty of their own Judgment But this Protestant certainty such as has been prov'd to rise as high as the Popish Infallibility He is not satisfied that the Relations of these disputes are pen'd with Integrity Indeed the reasonings of the Roman Prelates and Doctors are such as One would be apt to think them mis-related but when I read our Modern Controvertists I begin to have a great respect for their Fore-fathers The next Paragraphs tell us §. 67.68 that if the Ejection of these Bishops were lawful then the Introduction of others will be so too tho' 1. Whilst they living 2ly Without the Metropolitan's consent But I am so well satisfied he has not prov'd the lawfulness of the Ejection that I shall not dispute with him concerning the Consequences of it Our Author him-self who doth not use to be scrupulous seems here unsatisfied with his own performances For being conscious he has not prov'd Q. Mary's Clergy lawful § 69 He has another hold to which he makes his last retreat He is willing to justifie Q. Mary's re-establishment of the former Religion even without her own Clergy from the Autority of Superior Synods This he knows is part of our Plea but with this advantage on our side that Whereas he will have the Prince oblig'd to execute the Church's Canons without Inferior license We think him much more concern'd to provide for the Execution of Christ's Laws without such consent of the Clergy What has been said in this Chapter cannot want a Recapitulation The ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was to have been prov'd unlawful because for an unlawful Cause and by an unlawful Judge the ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's time lawful because for a lawful Cause and by a lawful Judge the Judges in both cases were the same viz. the Commissioners of each Prince the Causes in neither are rightly assign'd and of those which are assign'd Nothing is said to prove their respective lawfulness or unlawfulness This is the great Argument of the Chapter to repeat all the fals-hoods in it would be to transcribe it A Reply to his 6th Chapter THat the former Supremacy was reassum'd by Q. Elizabeth §. 70.71 is confest Thus much is said in the Title of this Chapter and no more in 3 pages of it Some bounds of this Supremacy are own'd to be assign'd by Protestant Writers § 72 Who therefore are wrong'd by this Author when they are represented as Advocates of an unlimited Supremacy The Qualifications by us urg'd are taken from the Queen's Title her Admonition the words of the 37th Article and the Proviso in the first Act of Q. Elizabeth § 73 Now as to his Rational Reply to the Title that Head and Governor in a due sense are Synonymous I allow but because the Style of Head gave Offence the changing of it into a word which was less obnoxious to cavil § 74 was material As to the Admonition it has been observ'd
but I know not of any Henrician Creed incorporated into our Faith The Romanists have a Creed Younger by some Years then King Henry but nothing is a part of our Faith but what sprung up with Infant-Christianity It is therefore a wild Inference that because we own the King to be Supreme Head of the Church therefore We make the Christian Religion mutable Did we make Acts of Parliament the Rule of our Faith there would be ground for such an Objection For then an Article of Faith might be enacted and repeal'd at pleasure and He who was Orthodox in one Session might become an Heretic in the next But Scripture is the Rule of our Faith a Rule like it's Author unchangeable the same yesterday to day and for ever The Christian indeed is obnoxious to the power of the Prince but Christianity is without the reach of his Sword Nor has the King this influence over the external profession of Religion as he is the Ecclesiastical Head but as he is the Civil Supreme God has intrusted him as such with the power of the Sword with a command indeed to use it for the protection of the true Religion but with a natural liberty still of using it for the Protection of a false This Author I confess has a remedy against this namely some Temporal coactive power lodg'd in the Pope in order to dissolve upon Occasion the coactive power of the Prince But we do not envy him this Catholicon against Innovation Passive Obedience is our Principle and if this renders the legal Establishment of our Religion more obnoxious to the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate Yet it better secures our common Christianity Q. Mary therefore may repeal King Edward's Laws but unless she could repeal Christ's Law too Ridley's and Latimer's Religion will still be the same The only difference is that the Faith which before they defended from the Pulpit they now more effectually propagate at the Stake To conclude this point whilst Princes have the power of the Sword and Subjects are oblig'd to Non-resistance the Supreme Governor will have an influence over the outward State of Religion and He that complains of this repines against the Methods of God's providence It is no blemish therefore on the Reform'd Religion which is here dwelt upon by this Author that it went forward or backward under King Henry according as his different passions or Interests inclin'd him Whilst Q. Ann liv'd it had indifferent success saith Fox Here then saith our witty Observer the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and manag'd the Affairs of Religion accordingly Now admitting this were a truth which had escap'd him Yet the curious Editor I doubt not amongst his Collections has met with a Medal representing Donna Olympia with the Pope's Mitre on her Head and St. Peter's Keys in her Hands and on the Reverse the Pope with his Head drest like a Lady and a Spindle in his hand Be it also true that Cromwel a Laic had the total management of Ecclesiastical affairs under King Henry Yet any one Who is conversant in History knows that the administration of the Popedom has been in the Hands of more obnoxious Favourites § 86 What is said in the next Paragraph is not of more moment here then when first mention'd in Paragraph the 19th § 87 By Virtue of such Supremacy he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses Our prolix Author who never spares his own Labour or his Reader 's Patience has enlarg'd upon this point for 12 Paragraphs and is very copious against Sacrilege But I do not see how our Cause is concern'd in this charge Avarice and Sacrilege are as great Sins in our Homilies as they are in the Popish Canons and Cranmer and Ridley were as severe against robbing the Church as this Declaimer We are no more concern'd to defend King Henry's rapines then the Lusts some have charged him with Were the Suppression of Abbies as great a crime as it is here under false colours represented I do not see why we are more oblig'd to plead in it's favour than this Writer would think himself bound because he asserts the power of the Roman Patriarch to justifie the foul and unparallel'd enormities of those who have sat in St. Peter's chair But were the dissolution of Monasteries represented impartially it would be easie were it necessary to give it a fair appearance and it must be at last confest that the fault of King Henry was not so much in taking away those foundations of Superstition as in not applying all the Revenues as he did some and had done more if the Reformers had had more Influence over him to Uses truly Religious By Virtue of such a Supremacy he made orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage §. 99.100 of Fasts of Holydays of Election and Consecration of Bishops and Challeng'd a power of abrogating several other Ceremonies It ought to have been shewn that any Constitutions concerning these did ever oblige us but such as either were made and ordained within this Realm or such other as were induced into the Realm by sufferance consent and custom for until this Proposition laid down in the Statute a 25. of Hen. 8.27 c. be disprov'd the Assumption there that the State hath power to dispence with it's own Laws will be unshaken Ecclesiastical Canons with this Author is another expression for Papal Decrees the Autority therefore which supported them being justly taken away it is no wonder if they fell with it Amongst the Rites which King Henry commands to be observ'd till he shall be pleas'd to alter them Fox reckons paying of Tithes Where this Annotator observes that Tithes are here conceiv'd to be in the disposal of the Supreme Head of the English Church Now whether King Henry thought Tithes to be jure divino or not doth not concern the Reformation But what is here said of payment of Tithes doth not prove that he thought them alienable from the Clergy For he might by his Laws regulate the payment of them tho' he did not think them disposable in this Author's sense Several Statutes were made in his Reign for the better securing this Right of the Clergy In them a 27. Hen. 8. c. 20. Tithes are said to be due to God and the Church the detainers of them to have no regard of their b 32. Hen. 8. c. 7. duties to Almighty God And the c Ref. Leg. Tit. de Decimis cap. 1. Reformatio legum derives the Clergy's original right to them from the Laws of Christ § 101 By Virtue of such Supremacy he without any consent of the Clergy by his Vice-gerent Cromwel order'd that English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church The translation of the Bible was petition'd by the 2 d Bur. V. 1. p. 195. Houses of Convocation and the publication of it was included in that request This Act therefore had the consent of the
Clergy tho' had it wanted it it would have been justifiable from the Law of God The prohibition of the Scriptures to the Vulgar which follow'd afterwards was no Act of the Reformation but of the Anti-reformers It was pretended that some erroneous Opinions were propagated by a free Use of the Scripture and therefore that Use was restrain'd Now least it be objected by Us that the Opinions the King call'd erroneous were the Protestant doctrines discover'd by the Vulgar from the New light of Sciptures this Author bids us see the very Opinions a the Bishops collected them in Fox unownable by any sober Christian It is my fate to deal with One who glory 's in his Shame and Who is seldom content to be mistaken but he refers his Reader to the very Page which confutes him Fox in the very place by him cited has shew'd how unfaithful the Bishops were in that Collection He has with great Industry compar'd the Bishop's Catalogue of Errors with the Books whence they are cited and from the Comparison has prov'd the Bishops guilty of a fault which this Author inherits from them that they perverted the sayings of the Protestants otherwise then they meant fasly belied them or untruly mistook them either in mangling the places or adding to their words as might serve for their most advantage to bring them out of credit By Virtue of such a Supremacy these things that King did some of them against the Canons not of Popes but of the Catholic Church § 102 and Superior Councils The truth of this depends upon the four first parts of Church-Government When we know what he means by Church-Catholic what by Superior Councils and what those Acts of the Reformation are which are thus opposite to such Obligatory Canons for we do not desire to justifie all King Henry's proceedings it will then be seasonable to give in our Plea to this at present indefinite charge That the King should derive his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction on Cromwel a secular person § 103 and unlearned concerns not Us since the placing such Jurisdiction on a Person so unqualifi'd is no part of the establish'd Discipline of this Church But that this is not a thing unparallel'd the Animadverter has given an Instance in the King of Spain's exercising by Lay-Delegates greater Autority in Spirituals then can be pretended to have been lodg'd in Cromwel If now we look back to the a Bur. Hist Pref. preparations which were made towards a Reformation in this King's Reign and consider that the Papal Usurpation was by him abolished the Rites and Constitutions which depended merely on that Autority faln together with it the Superstition of Images Reliques and redemption of Souls out of Purgatory supprest with the Monasteries the extravagant Addresses to Saints reduc'd to a mere ora pro Nobis and that left at Liberty to be us'd or omitted the Scriptures translated publish'd and made the Rule of Faith and the power of a National Church to reform her self vindicated We shall not be scrupulous to sdbscribe Mr. Fox's Epiphonema which so much grieves this Author That King Henry did by his Autority more good for the redressing and advancing Christ's Church here in England in three Years then the Pope the great Vicar of Christ with all his Bishops and Prelates had done in the Space of three hundred Years before A Reply to Chapter the 8th § 104 THis Chapter is usher'd in with a reflection on the breach made by King Henry upon the Church's Doctrines I confess my self very curious to know how a breach here is reconcil'd with a Non-discession from the Church's Doctrines above § 80 but will by no means engage this Author upon so immoderate a task as that of salving all his Contradictions I rather choose to own it as an extraordinary piece of modesty that he has plac'd the two Contradictory Propositions in different Chapters He challenges the Duke of Northumberland to be of the Roman Church §. 105. n. 1. We confess it nor do we envy him such a member His striking in for ambitious ends with the Reformers who went upon honest princeples casts a blot upon his memory but no blemish on the Reformation Whether Cromwel died a Roman Catholic as this Author intimates or not the term Catholic faith us'd in his last Speech made doubtful This Writer bids us compare Fox with Lord Herbert Fox supposes him a Protestant and in the Margin calls his Speech a Fox p. 1190. A true Christian profession of the Lord Cromwel at his death Lord Herbert in his History saith no more then that b Lord Herbert Hist p 524. he made profession of the Catholic faith the Index c Under the Letter C. indeed saith he died a Roman-Catholic Th e d Antiq. Brit. p. 334. Author of the Antiquities gives him an High Character and supposes him of the Reformed Religion I do not find that Heylin or Godwin mention any thing of this e Ful. Hist 1. 5. p. 233. Fuller after his way descants upon it and inclines to think him a Protestant Dr. Burnet f Bur. V. 1. p. 285. makes it appear that the term Catholic faith was then us'd in it's true Sense in Opposition to the Novelties of the See of Rome He argues from his praying in English and that to God only through Christ without those tricks which the Roman Church use when they die that he was none of theirs After all this Controversie is not perhaps worth the deciding but this Author is over peremptory in affirming that he died a Catholic in his Sense King Edward had but one Parliament all his days § 105. n. 2. continu'd by Prorogation from Session to Session till at last it ended in the death of the King It betrays gross Ignorance in one who sets up for an Historian thus blindly to mistake in a matter so notorious g Bur. V. 2. p. 195.214 The first Parliament was dissolv'd Apr. 15. 1552. and a second call'd the 1st of March after As for the complexion of King Edward's Parliament which he has given us from Dr. Heylin It arises to no more then that in so great a Body All did not act upon pure principles of Conscience but some were sway'd by their Interest An imputation from which None can pretend to vindicate their Infallible Councils not this Author himself Cranmer is accus'd of unorthodox Opinions concerning the power of the Church § 105. n. 3. Cranmer pretended not to be Infallible and all that is here said is that he was not He a Bur. V. 1. p. 172. had some singular Opinions concerning Ecclesiastical Functions which yet he enjoyed by himself and never studied to make them part of the doctrine of this Church These b Bur. V. 1. inter Addenda p. 357. afterwards he corrected and we find him subscribing a Declaration in which it is affirm'd that the Power of the Keys is formally distinct from that of the
Sword And least it be thought that in this subscription he was over-rul'd by a majority in a c Bur. V. 2. p. 71. Work which was wholly his own without the concurrence of any other He sets forth their Divine Institution Posterity saith our Commentator might have done better to have cover'd this Nakedness of their forefather then to have publish'd it after so great Silence A caution this of great use to the Followers of Ignatius and Francis but till we come to draw Parallels betwixt Cranmer and our Saviour we shall not be asham'd to own in him the frailties of a Man § 106 King Edward sent out Injunctions in matters of Religion True And these contrary to the Decrees of former Obliging Councils Which till the four former parts of Church-Government are publish'd I may safely deny Without the consent of a Synod the Act of which only has force in such Matters This has been said often but never yet attempted to be prov'd § 107 He next presents us with a summary of the King's proceedings from Fox but according to his usual method very much interpolated Men of Learning were sent for from forreign Countries saith Fox Which argues scarcity at home of those Clergy who would second the King's Reformation saith the Comment After his rate of arguing very possibly it may men of great Learning say Travellers are at this time great rarities in some Popish Countries Yet my Logick gives me no encouragement to argue that in those places there is a scarcity of Popish Clergy Among those sent for saith Fox were Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and Paulus Fagius He might have added saith the Parathesis Bernardus Ochinus Had he been as much delighted in adding as we find this Church-Governor he no doubt would have added it But Mr. Fox very probably had not read that Ochinus was sent for and therefore besides other reasons made Conscience of saying it Martyr taught at Oxford Bucer and Fagius at Cambridge saith Fox Sure saith our Author not because the Vniversities were not held so Learned but because they were not counted so Orthodox Very sure it is that a composition of both was requir'd and it is no wonder if in the very dawnings of Reformation Persons so qualified were very rare Fox addeth And that with no small commendation of the whole University The Author puts in not without opposition of many Learned Men there and recommends to our Reading when at leisure the rational arguings of Mr. Glyn Mr. Langdale and others against the Reformers How rational their arguings are he that is at leisure may consider but this Writer has given us such a Specimen of his own that I doubt his Judgment will little recommend them But since he has impos'd this task upon us I hope by way of return he will be pleas'd to peruse the Dialogue between Custom and Veritie which immediatly follows that part of Fox which he has assign'd us As for the Oxford oppositions Peter Martyr's relation is perhaps not the most impartial And some may say our Church-Governor is perhaps not the most Honest For if by this scrupulosity of Expression he would insinuate that Martyr was partial this is a Calumny borrow'd from Sanders and replied to by his a Bur. V. 2. App. p. 394. Confuter You may find in his Opponents Tresham Chadsey and Morgan much Learning Reverence to the Church and zeal in their Cause I have not the Relation by me and therefore can pass no judgment on this Learned Triumvirate But as for Tresham we have a Specimen in Fox b Fox p. 1475. how great a Talent he was Master of in disputing Being Pro-Sub-Dean of Christ-Church he call'd all the Students together and recommended Popery to them upon these convincing grounds 1st He urg'd that there were a goodly company of Copes that were appointed to Windsor but he had found the Queen so gracious to him that they should come to Christ-Church Now if they like honest men would come to Mass they should wear them on Holy-days A second motive was that he would get them the Lady-Bell of Bampton and that should make the sweetest ring in all England The third was that as for an Holy-Water-Sprinkle he had allready the fairest within this Realm He thought therefore no man would be so mad as to forego these commodities It may be needless to remark to the Gentle-men of that Foundation that our Adversaries are still the same dangerous Orators and therefore if any should have irrecoverably engag'd his Affections to a pretty pair of Beads or set his heart immoderately upon the great Bell it concerns him to have a guard upon himself The Author having muster'd up the Bishops ejected in King Edward's days adds Pate Bishop of Rochester Goldwel Bishop of St. Asaph Bishop elect of Bangor are said to have been Banish'd If the Author was Jesuite enough to say this to himself before he wrote it he may come off If not it will prove a most unconscionable Gasconade Pate a Godw. Catal. of Bishops in Worcester Bur. V. 2. p. 324. was never Bishop of Rochester but of Worcester he was not Banish'd but Fled and this not in King Edward's time but in King Henry's So here was multum in parvo Goldwell b Heylin's History p. 224. was not Bishop of St. Asaph nor any other Bishop till A. 1555. which was in Q. Mary's time and therefore it was an unreasonable Prolepsis to make him one of the exil'd Bishops in King Edward's time Anonymus Long-stroke Bishop Elect of Bangor is one of our Author 's own Creation Some more he saith might be remov'd in like Manner who happen not to be mention'd because deceas'd before the Reign of Q. Mary as Wakeman Bishop of Glocester Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln Skyp Bishop of Hereford Rugg Bishop of Norwich No doubt they might have been if this Church-Governor had pleas'd for never Committee-man ejected more arbitrarily then he But that they actually were not remov'd we have these good reasons to think The ejection of Bishops is particularly insisted on by our Historians but these Bishops make none of the number All these Bishops do happen to be mention'd not as depriv'd but deceas'd Tho' their Deprivation had deserv'd mentioning as well as their Death c Burn. V. 2. p. 152. Heylin's Hist p 90. Wakeman dyed in Dec. 1549. d Burn. V. 2. p. 203. Heylin's Hist p. 129. Holbeck in August 1551. e Burn. V. 2. p. 218. Skyp in the Year 1552. Rugg dyed in the Year 1550 according to f Godwin's Catalogue in Norwich Godwin Dr. Burnet g Burn. V. 2. p. 150. call's him Reps and saith heresign'd So that what our Author has inserted here de proprio is like to be lookt upon as one continu'd Forgery The next two Paragraphs have more truth in them §. 108.109 being transcrib'd from Fox But the Proclamation inhibiting the whole Clergy to preach cited from Fuller is question'd by
Us who has invited us to his House to a Volume of satisfactions that the Alienation of Church-Lands consists with the principles of that Church But 't is said King Edward went farther and declar'd Monastic Vows to be unlawful superstitious and unobliging The Reformers have always declar'd the same and must continue to do so till some reasons are brought to convince Us of the falshood of such a Declaration Those which are offer'd in the Discourse of Caelibacy are not demonstrative King Edward seiz'd upon Chauntries Free-Chappels c. his pretence being the Unlawfulness of offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist or giving alms for the defunct The unlawfulness of these is not pretended by the Reformation but prov'd The Chauntries were dissolv'd that the provisions for them might be converted to more pious Uses this was the design of the Act of Parliament for which only We can be thought oblig'd to answer how ever it might be defeated For the statute expressly provides that they be converted to good and Godly Uses as in erecting Grammar-Schools for the Education of Youth in Virtue and Godliness the farther augmenting of the Universities and better provision for the poor and needy § 139 In this he went beyond his Father that He began the taking of Bishop's Lands also This must be reckon'd an Act of the Reformation tho' he knows it is as pathetically lamented by our Writers as by his own He cites the complaints of three Protestant Bishops Cranmer Ridley and Godwin and a Protestant Dr. Heylin to prove this charge and yet at the same time has the boldness to charge it on the Reform'd Sure saith he foul things were done in this kind because I find even King Edward's favourite Bishops highly to dislike them If Cranmer and Ridley and other King Edward's favourite-Bishops disliked the spoyl of the Church-goods why is the Odium of this cast upon the Reformers Or why must very foul things be done before these declare their dislike when it will be found upon History that Cranmer and Ridley were more inveterate Enemies to robbing of the Church then Gardiner and Bonner He shuts up this Paragraph with a remark that Laymenders of Religion ordinarily terminate in these two things the advancing of their carnal Liberty and temporal Estates Sure this Author thinks that We know nothing beyond the Alps that we never heard of the rich Nephews of Popes which are flagrant evidences that Carnality and Avarice are not only Lay-vices But perhaps he may object that Popes are no menders of Religion § 140 By Virtue of such Supremacy he remov'd Images out of Churches and this when the Second Nicene Council had recommended the Use of them This Second Nicene Council is often appeal'd to by this Writer there is a Second Divine Commandment or at least there once was such a Commandment which will deserve his Consideration What Reverence we pay to this Council he may have learnt from a late a Reply to the 2 Disc Oxon. Reply where the Reader will find a just Character of this celebrated Assembly § 141 By Virtue of such Supremacy he impos'd a Book of Homilies i. e. He took care that the people should be instructed in things concerning their Salvation who before had been kept in ignorance § 142 He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion in both kinds to the people Which Command had been laid upon them by our Savior Contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance Which Injunction was made with a non-obstante to the Institution of Christ Without any preceding consultation of a National Synod But b Bur. V. 2. p. 50. others tell us it was agreed to by the Convocation which sat with that Parliament and particularly that in the lower House it did not meet with a Contradictory Vote § 143 The succeeding Paragraphs to the 164th treat at large of the Suppression of the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals the setting up of New Forms of Celebrating the Communion Ordination and Common-prayer the alterations of King Edward's first Common-Prayer-Book in his Second and the reduction of some things in the Scotch Liturgy to the first Form of King Edward and the complaints concerning this in Laudensium Autocatacrisis But the Reader will excuse me if I think a defence of our Liturgy at this time of day needless the unlawfulness of the Mass and Invocation of Saints and the non-Necessity of Sacerdotal Confession have been defended in Volumes besides that this which is here said is only a Second Edition of the two Discourses concerning the Adoration c. Where this change of the Services is animadverted on So that this has been already consider'd and any farther Reply is superseded by the two Learned Answers from London and Oxford to those Discourses § 146 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King conceiv'd he had a power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws This is the 4th time that this Reformation of the Laws has been insisted on it is here confest that this Rerformation of them was never ratified by King Parliament or Convocation i. e. that it was no Act of the Reformation Nothing is urg'd against it but that these Laws were establish'd by former Superior Councils and the Reader e're he can be satisfied of that must be at the charge of four more Volumes of Church-Government By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-Laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliament's Autority The Canon-Laws which he call's the Church-Laws for fasting were full of mockery and superstition Religion was plac'd in those Observances and yet Sensuality was consistent with them It was adviseable therefore to take off those Laws and yet to keep up such as might make Fasting and Abstinence agreeable to their true End Which is to be a means to Virtue and to subdue men's Bodies to their Soul and Spirit the End expressly provided for in the Statute There is no Obligation he saith for the Observation of either Fasting or Abstinence by any express Canon of this Church Reformed but only by Act of Parliament The days of Fasting are prescrib'd in the Liturgy which has the Autority of Convocation Fasting is enjoyn'd in the Homilies which have the same Autority It is there recommended from precepts of Scripture from the Example of Christ and from the Constitutions of the Primitive Councils It is defin'd to be a with-holding from all meat and drink and all manner of Natural food in contradiction to this Author who saith that not Fasting is enjoyn'd us but only Abstinence from Flesh He might with as good reason have urg'd that Praying to God and believing in Christ are not enjoyn'd by the Church as that Fasting is not For if by Canons he means those which are properly so call'd neither is there any Canon that I know of which enjoyns such Prayer or such Belief § 165 By Virtue of such Supremacy
the King and Parliament ordain'd that such Laws which prohibited Marriage to any Spiritual Persons who by Gods Law might Marry should be of none effect The Convocation had declar'd the Marriage of Priests lawfull by the Law of God the State found the Prohibition tended to the detriment of the Republic and therefore had they had no other reason might according to our Author 's own principles take it off § 166 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King published 42 Articles of Religion said to be agreed on in a Synod of the Clergy held at London If these Articles were the legitimate Act of the Synod then they were not the effects of mere Regal Supremacy and that they were so will I doubt not appear notwithstanding all his cavils If any one should question whether the Iliads and Aeneids were the genuine works of Homer and Virgil the Title they carry and the Universal Tradition which assigns them to these Authors would be thought a sufficient Vindication of them This Author builds part of his Faith on the second Nicene Council and opposes it's Decree in favour of Image-Worship to the second Commandment forbidding it If I should ask him how he knew such a Decree to be genuine he would not I believe produce the Records but think it a good Reply that it is found amongst those Acts which bear the Name of that Council and which the Church has allways accepted as such These Articles are published with the Title of the Synod this publication was Anno 1553 the next Year to that in which we say they were past in Convocation the Church for the first 5 years of Queen Elizabeth retain'd these Articles as her Doctrine the Convocation in that Queen's time reestablish'd them with very little Alteration they have been appeal'd to ever since by our Writers as the Acts of that Synod they have been own'd by our Adversaries as such and if so general a Tradition of a thing so notorious and so lately done may not be admitted the Church of Rome is built upon a weak Foundation But all this notwithstanding this Author thinks he has good Reason to deny that these Articles were establish'd by that Synod First he transcribes what Mr. Fuller saith of this Convocation which I shall not hear copy because the Author has here once for all dealt ingenuously Mr. Fuller saith the Records of this Convocation are but one degree above blanks and to the same purpose Dr. Heylin But neither of these Historians had seen Q Mary's Commission for razing the Records else they could have given us an account why these Registers are so bare Dr. Heylin a Heylin's History p. 121. found left upon Record in that Convocation a Memorandum concerning the Dissolution of the Bishoprick of Westminster and it is not improbable that these Articles were expung'd by some Persons who yet were willing that the Dissolution of a Bishoprick which they thought might cast an odium upon the Reformation might remain upon Record As for Fuller's Assertion that the Convocation had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business it is only a conjecture which he makes from the silence of the Records Fuller's Discourse of the Catechism doth not at all affect the Articles unless it be prov'd that by Catechism must be understood Articles which our Author endeavours to perswade his unwary Reader For this purpose he next presents us with a Relation from Fox concerning the questioning of a Catechism in the 1st Synod of Q. Mary but here he is himself again as will appear to the Reader if he compares this Relation with Fox's He concludes this Story with this Epiphonema This concerning the questioning of the Catechism and Articles whereas in the Relation nothing is said of the Articles but the Catechism only To clear this point a little farther He finds in Fox Arch-Bishop Cranmer charg'd amongst other things with being Author of the Catechism and Articles and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them Here again he shuffles Arch-Bishop Cranmer is not there charg'd for compelling Men to subscribe the Catechism but the Articles as appears from Fox's relation as it is transcrib'd even by himself but he makes the Catechism subscrib'd that it may look like a Synonymous term to Articles Arch-Bishop Cranmer answer'd to that charge that he exhorted such as were willing to subscribe but compell'd none against their wills Now where this Exhortation and Subscription was unless in Synod will not easily be answered Having given us these three relations he next proceeds to make reflections on them First he excepts against the words in the Title of the Articles de quibus inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros c. that they seem not the ordinary expression of a Synodal Act which runs more generally as thus de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clerum universum or the like This which he calls an ordinary expression will scarce be found in the Title of any Synodal Act before Q. Elizabeth These Articles are by him confest to have been subscrib'd by part of the Synod Cranmer who drew up the Articles and procur'd Subscriptions to them must himself be a Subscriber probably also Holgate Arch-Bishop of York who was a Reformer Archiepiscopal Autority therefore might have been mention'd had they been the Act of only a part of the Synod and therefore that it is not explicitly mention'd for it is implied in the Episcopal can be no argument that they were the Act of a part only But the other words in the Title ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum shew they must have been the Act of the whole Synod since the Opinion of a part could not be effectual to such an End Next he observes that tho' the Prolocutor in the Synod 10 Mariae questions and Philpot answers concerning the Catechism yet they speak not of the Catechism but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of the Catechism and bound up with it which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechism and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation and so also calls them the Catechism because the first Title of this Book is Catechismus brevis c. In this Period we have as much crude unconcocted reasoning as would have furnish'd an ordinary Writer for some Pages Weston ill deserv'd the Office of Prolocutor if speaking of a Catechism he meant not that but the Articles which are two as distinct things as can well be imagin'd The Articles a They are so bound up together in the public Library were indeed bound up with the Catechism but have a new Title-page and are as distinct from it as the Discourse of Caelibacy is from the Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther Now had the Answerer to the Considerations on Martin Luther entitl'd his Book an Answer to the Discourse of Caelebacy or should
Bishoprick See Heylin's Hist of Reform p. 65. quoting the Register of Petworth was authorized by Act of Parliament and at the same time consented to as it seems by what is urged above § 110 by a Convocation of the Clergy of which see what is said §. 126 And the pretence of making this new Form in the Preface of that Act is this That whereas of long time there had been in the Realm divers Forms of Common Prayer the use of Sarum of York of Bangor and Lincolne and besides the same now of late much more divers and sundry Forms and Fashions have been used c to stay Innovation and Rites concerning the Premises his Highness being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his subjects in that behalf hath appointed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury c. having as well respect to the most pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture as to the usages in the Primitive Church to draw and make one convenient and meet order rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and Administration to be had and used in his Majesty's Realms Thus the Act. But to remedy these innovations or diversities of Forms how easy had it been to establish any one of the ancient Forms Or at least reasonable to retain in the new draught those things wherein all the former Church-Services agreed And not themselves to innovate for the hindering of innovations But the fact discovers the intention § 147 Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass For in this new draught was ejected and left out the Sacrifice of the Mass or the oblation to God of the Holy Eucharist as propitiatory or impetratory of any benefits to the living or to the dead contrary to the belife of former Church and Councils as is mentioned before § 118. And for this reason were the Altars in Churches commanded to be changed into Tables that the eating might be thought on but not the offering Whenas Hooper had preached before the King That so long as Altars remained both the ignorant people and the ignorant and evil-perswaded Priest would always dream of Sacrifice and besides the great men about the Court saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 95. had promised themselves no small hopes of profit by the dis-furnishing these Altars of the Hangings Palls Plate and other rich Utensils The leaving of one Chalice to every Church with a Cloth or covering for the Communion-Table being thought sufficient Upon the same excuse were the Chaunteries Free-Chappels c. seized on as chiefly erected for the relieving of the deceased with the offering of this Sacrifice and the Alms and Prayers accompanying it of which see before § 138. The benefit of which Sacrifice for the dead was yet a thing the more maintainable in those days because the new Form still retained this manner of praying for the dead Grant unto this thy Servant that the sins which he committed in this world be not imputed unto him but that he escaping the gates of Hell and pains of eternal darkness may ever dwell in the region of light with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the place where is no weeping sorrow nor heaviness c. See the Order for Burial Fol. 28. § 148 For the exclusion of this Sacrifice Where 1. Concerning the alterations in the first Common-Prayer Book if K. Edward's in relation to the Sac ifice of the Eucharist you may find in the new Communion see Communion Fol. 128. all those expressions in the former Liturgy that signify it diligently cancelled forbidding also the elevation of the Host after Consecration as these following In the Canon before Communicating Te supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata inprimis quae Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesiâ tuâ sanctâ Catholicâ c. And Memento Domine famulorum c pro quibus tibi offcrimus hoc sacrificium laudis pro redemptione animarum suarum pro spe salutis incolumitatis suae c. And Memores ejusdem Christi filii tui tam beatae passionis c. offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis Hostiam puram Hostiam sanctam Hostiam inmaculatam panem sanctum vit◠aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostril Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Jube haec perferri per manus Sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Divinae Majestatis tuae ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur And that in Post-Communion Praesta ut sacrificium quod oculie tuae Majestatis indignus obtuli Tibi sit acceptabile omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli sit te miserante propitianile These Expressions I say are cancelled and instead of these the new Form makes an oblation to God not of the consecrated Gifts or Sacrament at least expresly but of our thanks and of our own persons and service But this Oblation in imitation of the former it brings in immediately after the Consecration and before Communicating whilst the conescrated Elements yet remain upon the Table This new Form I thought good to transcribe because perhaps you may not have the Book Wherefore O Lord and heavenly Father according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son we do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy Gifts the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make having in remembrance his blessed Passion c. where whether some of the Composers who were of different perswasions see before §. 127 128. retaining the former intentions under an only-varied expression might not extend these ambiguous words to an offering of the holy misteries to God the Father as a commemorative Sacrifice of that of his Son upon the Cross I cannot say but thus it goes on Rendring unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same Entirely desiring thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thansgiving Most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ We and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his Passion And here we offer and present unto thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice unto Thee humbly beseeching thee that whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction the ancienter Form Ut quotquot
as particularly that 1. Edw. 6.2 mentioned before § 40 Yet so it was that all the chief Acts that King Edward's Parliaments or Clergy had made concerning the Reformation were now revived Sec 1. Eliz. â— c. 2. and all that Queen Mary's or Henry the Eighth's save in the matter of Supremacy Parliaments or Clergy had done against it was repealed But this §. 179. n. 3. Bâ—t nâ—t by the Clergy tho done in spiritual matters was done by the sole authority of the Queen and her Parliament without obtaining any Synod to reverse the contrary decrees of the former Synods under those two Princes nay further whilst all the Bishops that fate then in Parliament openly opposed these Innovations Cambden Hist Eliz. p 9. By her own sole authority the Queen likewise published certain Injunctions to the Clergy And now the Regal Supremacy being thus restored only by the Civil power an Oath of Supremacy was also drawn up and imposed on all Ecclesiastical persons upon penalty of the Refuser's losing all their Ecclesiastical promotion benefice and office 1. Eliz. 1. c. And so this Oath being unanimously refused by all the Bishops that then sate save only the Bishop of Landaff I say all that then sate For by reason of a contagious sickness that then reigned within less than the space of a twelve-month saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Mary p. 81. almost one half of the English Bishops had made void their Sees three Bishopricks having been void from 1557 three Bishops dying some few weeks before the Queen three not long after one on the same day which with the death of so many of the Priests also in several places did much facilitate the way saith he to that Reformation that soon after followed they were all ejected out of their Bishopricks and with them of the chief of the Clergy fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Deans twelve Arch-Deacons six Abbots Camb. p. 17. fifty Prebendaries lost their Spiritual Preferments Meanwhile many others saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Qu. Eliz. p. 115. who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome dispensing with themselves in outward conformities upon a hope of such revolutions in Church-affairs as had hapned formerly § 180 Here that we may examine the lawfulness of the ejection of these Prelates for refusing such Oath The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy The unlawfulness there of upon which depends the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Acts of the Clergy succeeding them I will first set you down the form of the Oath which was this I do testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce all forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall assist and defend to my power all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm § 181 This Oath you see consists of two parts a Supremacy attributed and professed to the Prince Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend and a Supremacy denyed and renounced to any Forreign power And that I may speak more distinctly in this matter 1. As to the first of these thus much is freely conceded That the Civil Magistrate hath a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs and that such as none other hath namely this An external coactive power or jurisdiction committed to him by God to enjoyn to his Subjects the observance of the Laws of the Church and of the Laws of God as they are declared to him to be such by the Church and to restrain and punish the transgressors of them whether Clergy or Laity within his Dominions with the Civil Sword which God hath put only into his hands So that no Canons of the Church can be by the Ecclesiasticks or others executed or enforced on the Subject as Laws viz. with external Coaction pecuniary or corporal mulcts or punishments c. before the Secular Prince is pleased to admit such Canons and enroll them amongst his Laws or to concede such coactive power to his Clergy How far also the Kings Supremacy may extend over all Ecclesiastical persons concerning the Investiture and presentation of them so long as their canonical sufficiency is not denyed by the Clergy to such Temporal Church-Possessions as either Princes or others by their permission have conferred on the Church about which hath been in ancient times great Controversy between several Kings of England and the Pope I meddle not to determine Let this for the present be granted as much as any Prince hath claimed It is likewise conceded that in those words of the Oath only Supreme Governor in Spiritual things there is not any thing that expresly extends the Regal Supremacy any further which may be the only supreme power m Ecclesiasticals in one respect and not in another Nor no more is there in the thirty seventh Article of the Church of England which expounds the Kings Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All which he may do and yet be tyed in all things to obey the Church her Laws and to leave to her the sole judgment who are these evil-doers as to the breaking of Gods Laws or who stubborn and heretical persons And such Regal Supremacy will well consist with another either with a domestick Supremacy of his own Clergy in judging Controversies and promulgating Laws in meerly Spirituals or also with a forreign Supremacy and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch over all the Bishops of his Patriarchy in what Prince's Dominions soever or of a General Council over all Provincial or National Churches If therefore only such a Regal Supremacy as this were intended in the Oath it cannot be justly refused viz. If the Oath should run thus I do testify that the King is the Supreme c. as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal that is as this Supremacy is expounded in Article thirty seventh to rule with the Civil Sword all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers And if this word such be inserted in the words following And I do testify that no forreign Prince Prelate c. ought to have any such jurisdiction c. And Ergo I do utterly renounce all such forreign Jurisdiction c. You will say what is gained to the King by an Oath so limited This that no Forreign or Domestick
Spiritual Persons for Moral and Civil Misdemeanors damageable to the Common-Wealth But this Limitation is forgot when from this Thesis He would prove the ejection of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time unlawful For their Deprivation was for refusing the Oath of Supremacy made first by Roman-Catholicks in King Henry the 8th's time and reviv'd by Queen Elizabeth so that the Justice of it depends merely on the Right of the Civil power to make Oaths for the better security of their Government and to impose such Penalties as are exprest in the Law on the Violators and if such Refusal be damageable to the Common-Wealth as it was then judg'd then the Deprivation of those Refusers will be justifiable according to his own Principles Thus again in his 8th Thesis When he has laid down That as for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution §. 14. p. 18. Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any New Canons contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former Superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them He restrains it to those only as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his Civil Government nor the National Synod can shew more prejudicial to their particular Church then the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches Where by the way methinks it should suffice if they were aequally prejudicial for one Church is never the less wrong'd because another suffers Now we desire no more then the benefit of this limitation for if the Prince may reverse such Constitutions when prejudicial to Civil Government and the National Synod when praejudicial to their particular Church and each of These are Judges of such praejudice for neither doth Aequity admit nor doth He appoint any other Arbiter then each of these have as much power granted them as they challenge which is only to alter such Constitutions as are prejudicial to them Having praemis'd thus much in general and caution'd the Reader against this piece of Sophistry which runs through the greatest part of this Discourse I shall now proceed to a particular survey of his Theses As for the first and second I shall at present grant him that favour which he seems to request of all his Readers i.e. suppose them to be true and shall content my self only to examin what Inferences he deduces from them And here I cannot but commend his Policy for setting his Conclusions at so great a distance from his Praemisses for they are commonly such as would have by no means agreed to stand too nigh together From his first and second Thesis that the Clergy have power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judge what is divine truth what are Errors that they cannot alienate this Power to the Secular Prince §. 22. p. 29. he infers That that Synodical Act of the Clergy in K. Henry the Eighth's time whereby they promise not to Assemble without the King 's Writ nor when Assembled to execute any Canons without the King's consent is unlawful Now it is to be observed that the Clergy neither do deny that they have a Power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion which is what the first Thesis would prove nor do they transfer such a Power on the King which might be against the Tenor of the second The utmost which can be deduc'd hence is That the Clergy did for prudential motives limit themselves in the Exercise of one branch of their Spiritual Power and it will be difficult for this Author to prove that He who has a power jure divino may not by humane Laws be limited in the Use of it Husbands have a power over their Wives Fathers over their Children and Masters over their Servants by the Law of God and yet this power may be regulated by the Laws of the Land §. 27. p. 36. Thus the Priest has a power to bind and loose from our Saviour's Commission and yet according to this Author before the Reformation the Inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the Commands of their lawful Spiritual Superior Thus also if a General Council have power to determine matters of Faith then according to his Principles they have power to convene in order to such Determination and this power of theirs is unalienable and yet the Romanists will not allow that such Conventions may be made at pleasure but that the hic nunc are determinable by the Pope who only has power to indict Councils and to give Autority to those decrees which yet derive their power from the Council's being infallible and from the Holy Ghost assisting them Another Act which from the same Thesis he accuses of Injustice is the Clergy's beseeching the King's Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal §. 25. p. 31. which be thought prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of 32 Persons 16 of the Temporally and 16 of the Clergy of this Realm to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annull'd shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approv'd to stand with the Law of God c. shall stand in power Now it is to be consider'd that the Laws which the Clergy here desire may be revis'd are of a far different Nature and therefore the Inspection of them may well be committed to different Judges Some of them were suppos'd prejudicial to the King's Praerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws of the Realm and here the Lay-Commissioners being persons of the upper and lower House of Parliament see the Stat. were the best Judges Of others it was to be enquir'd Whether they were agreeable to the word of God or not and here the Clergy were ready to give their Determination And altho' they both acted in a joynt Commission yet no good reason seems assignable why both Lay and Ecclesiastical Judges should be appointed but that the matters to be examin'd being of different cognizance those which related to Civil Affairs should be determin'd by the Temporalty those which were of a Spiritual Nature by the Spiritualty And if so then the deciding of these matters is not transfer'd from the Spiritualty to the Temporalty but from one part of the Clergy to another And this He himself after all his descants upon this Act confesseth For whatever sense the words in the Praeface of this Act were or may be extended to §. 26.10 I do not think the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine truth and for this Opinion of his He gives us his Reasons in that and the subsequent pages Another
Act which is by this Author judg'd contrary to his first Thesis is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking holding or doing against any Laws call'd Spiritual Laws made by Autority of the See of Rome which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm § 34. p. 39. or the King's Praerogative shall be deem'd to be Haeresie from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Haeresie Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Haereticks Whether such speaking or doing be Haeresie or not they have power to ordain that it shall not be deem'd so i. e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment to use our Author's expression of another Act made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queens Majesties Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religtion shall be to all intents adjudg'd as Traytors and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason and the like of Persons willingly reconcil'd Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler or Reconciled is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traytor all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments without being accountable for this to any Autority under God's And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself or acts against such Laws of a Forreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right Another Act condemn'd by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Autority to make Ecclesiastical laws §. 43. p. 56. and pursuant to this 42 Articles of Religion publish'd by the Autority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign Now not to engage my self in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title praefix'd they are said to be Articuli de quibus in Synodo London A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros convenerat Regia autoritate in lucem editi I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London §. 166. p. 187. So that here is only a part of the Synod employ'd in drawing up these Articles and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transfer'd from Ecclesiastial persons to Secular which was by him to have been prov'd Another Inference which he deduces from these Theses is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy §. 185. p. 214. Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended will best be learnt from our Articles * Art 37. The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not or ought not to be subject to any forreign Jurisdiction So far for the extent of this power but now for the restraint Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended We give not to our Prince the ministring either of God's word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn evil doers It is therefore by our Author to be prov'd that they who give no more to their Prince then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself do alienate to the Secular Governour any Autority or Office which they the Clergy have receiv'd and been charg'd with by Christ with a command to execute the same to the end of the World which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile That by this Oath or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assum'd by her self or given to her by Others then is consistent with that Autority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us * Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684. Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Autority but what was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning Her Majesty is well pleas'd to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contain'd in the act therein mention'd against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath So that it 's evident from this Injunction that it 's no way here stated what Autority belongs to the Church and what to the Civil Magistrate farther then that the Queen as justly she might challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and neither did nor would challenge more but what that was is not here determin'd and she is content without such Determination if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all forreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil Another Act which He finds repugnant to his his 1st pag. 36. Thesis is King Henry the Eth's claiming a right that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave