which they account Infallible It is true some have thought they could get out of this difficulty by denying these to be the Acts of that Council But if our Author be the same Person with him that writ concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist he is of another mind and doth acknowledg that those Canons are the true Acts of that great Assembly and not only the Designs of the Pope It is true he saith the sense of the Canon concerning the secular Powers is by Protestants mistaken But he hath not yet given himself the trouble of laying before us the true sense of that Canon and one would think that he who writ the Treatise that is now under Examination had very favourable thoughts of the Doctrine of Subjects shaking off an heretical Prince for he reckons up the many risings that were in K. Edwards days chiefly for matter of Religion as a proof that the Body of the Clergy went not into that change Which rising saith he of the Laity in such numbers for their former way of Religion would not have been had not their Clergy justified it unto them Rising is a soft word for Rebellion and one would think that it would have afforded no small matter of reproach against us if we brought in a company of Rebels to make up a Muster of our Religion But to own that the Clergy justified it to them without adding the least Word expressing our Author's dislike of this shews plainly enough that how good a Subject soever our Author may be to a Prince of his own Religion yet he thinks a Catholick Clergy may be able to justifie to the Laity a Rising against a Heretical Prince upon the account of Religion And it seems our Author had a great mind to make a huge appearance of his Catholick Rebels in K. Edwards days For besides that he speaks of Risings in many more Counties then are mentioned by the Books of that time he also represents all those Risings to have been upon the account of Religion tho the History makes it clear that the Risings over England were chiefly occasioned by Parks and Enclosures and that it was a rage of the Peasants against the Gentry in most places chiefly in the Northfolk-Rebellion where Religion was not at all pretended nor doth it appear that any pretended Religion except those of Devonshire so that our Author would make his Party and the Clergy more Rebellious than indeed they were In this whole Period he seems to have been forsaken of common Sense CHAP. III. Some general Considerations on the Regal Supremacy that was raised so high at the Reformation OUR Author hath brought together many Acts of Parliament with their pompous Preambles that seem to carry the Kings Power in Ecclesiastical Matters to a very Indefinite degree and upon all this he triumphs often as if this was so improper that it alone is enough to blast the whole Reformation Our Author is much more concerned to justifie all Papal Bulls than we can be to justifie all the Words of our Laws especially the Rhetorick that is in their Preambles If he believes the Pope infallible the general Parts of Bulls that set forth the Doctrine of the Church are such solemn Declarations that he must be determined by them But at lowest he believes the Popes to be the Centers of the Catholick Unity and all Bishops are bound by Oath to obey all their Decrees and Ordinances Now when our Author will undertake to justifie all the Preambles of Bulls that are in the Bullarium then we may undertake to justifie all the flourishes that may be in any Act of Parliament When any Authority is asserted in general and indefinite Terms these are always to be understood with those Restrictions and Limitations that the nature of things require to be supposed even when they are not expressed St. Paul expresses the Obedience of Wives to their Husbands in terms so extreamly extended that as the Church is subject unto Christ so ought the Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing He expresses also the Duty of Children in as comprehensive terms Children obey your Parents in all things Now if one would draw Inferences from the extent of these words he might taking the liberty that our Author takes upon some of the Expressions that are in our Acts of Parliament represent the Authority that St. Paul vests both in Husbands and Parents as a very boundless and a very extravagant thing This is enough to shew that in all those large Phrases of Obedience there are some necessary Reserves and Exceptions to be understood and if this Qualification is necessary even in writings that were inspired it is no wonder if some of the Rhetorick of our Acts of Parliament wants a little of this Correction It is a very unreasonable thing to urge some general Expressions or some stretches of the Royal Supremacy and not to consider that more strict Explanation that was made of it both in K. Henry the 8th's time and under Q. Elizabeth That were so clear that if we had to do with Men that had not resolved before-hand not to be satisfied one would think there could be no room for any further cavilling In K. Henry's time the extent of the Kings Supremacy was defined in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man that was set forth as the Standard of the Doctrine of that time and it was upon this that all people were obliged to take their measures and not upon some Expressions either in Acts of Parliament or Acts of the Convocation nor upon some stretches of the Kings Jurisdiction In this then it is plainly said That with relation to the Clergy the King is to oversee them and to cause that they execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and especially in those Points which by Christ and his Apostles was committed to them And to this it is added That Bishops and Priests are bound to obey all the Kings Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God. So that here is expressed that necessary Reserve upon their Obedience it being provided that they were only bound to obey when the Laws were not contrary to the Laws of God. The other Reserve is also made of all that Authority which was committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Bishops and Priests and we are not ashamed to own it freely that we see no other Reserves upon our obedience to the King besides these So that these being here specified there was an unexceptionable Declaration made of the Extent of the Kings Supremacy yet because the term Head of the Church had something in it that seemed harsh there was yet a more express Declaration made of this matter under Q. Elizabeth of which indeed our Author hath taken notice tho I do not find he takes notice of the former which he ought to have done if he had intended to have represented this matter sincerely to the world which I confess seems not
still the Priviledges of such a See when all those Reasons which at first procured to it those Priviledges come to cease As for the Third which are more perpetual we pay them all respect and have never changed them but the Dispensations of the Church of Rome hath so destroyed them all that it is a peculiar degree of Confidence for any that are in Communion with that Church to assert such an immutability in the Ancient Canons that a National Synod may not be suffered to alter any of them and yet that one single Bishop whom all Antiquity considered but as a Collegue and Fellow-Bishop to all the rest of the Order should be alloweed an Authority to break and dissolve them all This may serve to shew how weak all those Foundations are upon which our Author builds I come in the next place to examine his Defective and False Account of the Matters of Fact which will engage me into a tedious opening of many Particulars that will be little for our Author's Honour but no Discoveries will affect a Man that could stifle his Conscience for 25 Years and that now hath the Impudence to own it FINIS REFLECTIONS ON THE Oxford Theses Relating to the ENGLISH REFORMATION PART II. Amsterdam Printed for J. S. 1688. REFLECTIONS ON THE Oxford Theses Relating to the ENGLISH REFORMATION IN the former part of these Reflections the general grounds on which our Reformation was attacked were examined the matters of Fact come now to be considered but before I enter upon these alledged by our Author I thought it fitting to begin with an Enquiry into a very important matter relating to that time that hath been lately objected to our Church by one of the Church of Rome which as it is New so it is likewise of great Consequence A Sheet has appeared that was well and decently writ and with a very specious appearance of Reason to prove that Q Elizabeth was a Bastard not upon the common pretence of the Nullity of K. Henry the Eighth's Marriage with her Mother because his former Marriage with Q. Katherine was still in force but upon a Precontract in which Ann Bullen was engaged before her Marriage to K. Henry which being confessed by her self the Marriage was null of it self and was judged to be so by Arch-Bishop Cranmer whose Sentence was confirmed by the Subsequent Parliament So that here is a Nullity and by consequence a Bastardy It is true this Assertion is new so tho it may raise the Credit of him that hath discovered it since it must be confessed that it looks very like good reasoning yet on the other hand it is some prejudice against it that it doth not appear it was ever objected to us before now and no mention being made of it while the whole matter was fresh in Mens memories and while that Queen reigned whose Title this seems to weaken much more than all the other things that were alledged to shake it is a great Presumption that the Men of that time knew there was no force in it So that tho the Novelty of it may please yet it is really a strong prejudice against it But after all it must be confessed the thing is specious and it is of great consequence not only with Relation to the Credit of our Church and of its first Reformation but with Relation to our present Establishment For tho the Writer of that Sheet makes no other use of it but to blemish our Church as guilty of Sedition and Disloyalty for owning a Bastard against the Queen of Scots who was the next lawful Heir yet it will bear another Consequence that is more important in our present Circumstances For as a Precontract infers a Nullity of the Marriage and disables all the issue of it so an ill Title in a Queen infers a Nullity upon all her Laws all her Acts of Government as flowing from an Usurper and therefore this strikes not only at the Honour of our Church in the last Age but at its Settlement in the present and I believe this last is chiefly aimed at For as to the former it may serve in a great measure to justifie our Church that Q. Elizabeth was put in Possession of the Crown by the Nation while it was yet Popish and by the Body of the Clergy that were of that Religion so that all that those of our Church did was to maintain her in that Possession in which we found her and in which our Enemies had put Her. And it must be acknowledged that an anxious weighing of Titles is not so necessary after one is in a legal and peaceable Possession acknowledged by all Parties within the Kingdom as well as by all Princes without it I do not pretend to say That a Possession will justify a bad Title tho there is older Law relating to the Possession of the Crown of England passed by King Henry the VII but an undisputed Possession does certainly very much excuse those who acknowledge and submit to one that is bonoe fidei Possessor Which was plainly Q. Elizabeth's Case But because it may be with great colour of Reason alledged that Right is Right still and that Possession or Prescription are only pretences of Law which may have perhaps weight before a Judg yet these are not sufficient to extinguish a just Title when matters are examined in themselves and abstracted from those Pleadings that may perhaps be legal yet as some will alledg are scarce rational So I will examine this matter as fairly as I must confess it is stated by that Gentleman and will first propose the matter of Fact as Dr. Burnet hath put it who is the only Author that is cited and therefore he must be supposed to have some Credit here Queen Ann Bullen was attainted of Treason upon some pretended Proofs of Adultery and so Judgment was given That she should be either Burnt which is the Death that the Law prescribes for the Traitors of that Sex or Beheaded Two days after the Sentence she is prevail'd on to confess a Precontract before Arch-Bishop Cranmer and so her Marriage with the King is declared void and null and in consequence of that the Issue is illegitimated yet this was so secretly carried that one of the Iudges of that time writes of it as a thing that was only reported and in the subsequent Act of Parliament no mention is made of a Precontract tho no doubt she had confessed it with the circumstances of Time and Person Yet in the Act of Parliament it is only said that she had confessed some just and lawful Impediments by which it was evident that her Marriage with the King was not valid It cannot be now known how this matter was expressed in the Sentence given by Cranmer all these Records being burnt But it is most probable that the matter was more distinctly specified Now the only Reason we can give of those general Words in the Act of Parliament is that this pretended
Author that I am a going to examine a little more familiarly I hope the Reader will not impute it to any roughness of temper in me for the examining of Matters of Fact or Arguments from Reason calmly and softly without any mixture of Sharpness is a thing so becoming a man and a Christian that it is not without some Pain to my self that I find I must sometimes say things that seem too severe But on the other hand when one finds he hath to do with much unjust malice he is carried to an Indignation that even forces him to a Style that would appear too flat if it were not a little sharpned when the Provocation is so just Yet I am so sensible that this Smartness of Expression is a thing that is rather to be excused than justified that I shall watch over my self lest I be carried too far towards it for I see there is occasion enough given me by my Author to tempt me to it But before I enter upon the matters of Fact I will take the liberty to set down a Period of our Author's which shews him as great an Apostate from Loyalty to the King as he is from the other Doctors of the Church of England He states the matter indeed as doubtful but the bringing of our Allegiance to the King to be disputable will be according to our Law a matter of Premunire at least His Words are Whether in case that a Prince use his Coactive Iurisdiction 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 Princes Coactive Power or to authorize others to use a Coactive Power against such a Prince in order to the good of the Church This they bring in question but then as this last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors so it is opposed by others of them This is in plain English that it is disputable Whether a Pope may not Depose an Heretical Prince and give his Dominions to another some Doctors of the Church of Rome holding the Affirmative and others the Negative so that according to the Doctrine of Probability every man may follow the Affirmative with a good Conscience and this being so invidious a matter our Author 's proposing it as doubtful without declaring himself against it is a strong and even a violent presumption that he himself is for it And yet these men boast of their Loyalty Our Author insinuates the Nullity of Ann Bullens Marriage to which I have already given a full Answer But he supports it by two Arguments of his own making 1. He says the Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8. says that the King was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her From which he seems to infer That the Reports of the Kings Familiarity with her Sister were true But the Act of Parliament mentions only the Queens Confession and doth not say a word of the King 's knowing any such Reasons 2. He cites a Clause of a Dispensation pretended to be granted by P. Clement the 7th giving him leave to marry again to any Person tho in the first Degree of Affinity and tho she were unlawfully begot and to make this gain the more Credit he cites the Words in Latin. But there was no such Dispensation either asked or granted and this pretended Dispensation was afterwards forged by Q. Elizabeths Enemies to defame her The Bull of Dispensation that the King asked is set down by Dr. Burnet among the Records that he gives us in which there is no such Clause and it is plain that whatever the King 's secret intentions might be with relation to Ann Bullen that yet he had not declared them much less moved to have any such extravagant Clause put in the Bull For in the Letter that the two Legates writ to the Pope pressing him to grant the Bull they reject that Imputation that was cast on the King as if he proceeded in this matter out of an aversion to the Queen or that he was engaged in it by the Charms of the Person that he intended to marry who perhaps was not yet known to him This way of Writing shews at least that it is false that before this time the King had owned his Design for Ann Bullen much less that he had confessed Acts of Leudness with her Sister otherwise it had been too impudent a thing for the Legates to have writ in this strain So that I had reason to say That these were Arguments of our Author 's making and in matters of Fact this is the softest Word I can find for them II. Our Author falls into the Common Error of Card. Woolsey's concurring with the King at first in his Suit of Divorce and becoming afterwards averse to it when he discovered his Inclinations to Ann Bullen but her two Letters to the Cardinal printed by Dr. Burnet shew manifestly the Falshood of this Imagination III. He says a 100000 pounds Charges was demanded by the King from the Clergy for the expence he had been at in obtaining so many Instruments from the foreign Universities that had decided this matter and for the Sums that were given he cites no better Authors than some Testimonies produced by Sanders But the falshood of this Imputation is so manifest that it appears by Dr. Crooks Letters and Accounts that are yet extant that he had scarce Money enough allowed him for his own Subsistence and as the small presents he made were inconsiderable being oft a Crown or two so in a Letter to the King he writes in these Words Vpon pain of my Head if the contrary be proved I never gave any man one half penny before I had his Conclusion to your Highness without former prayer or promise of Reward for the same By this way of Writing it is plain that instead of his being instructed and furnished with Money to corrupt Divines he had positive Orders to the contrary nor is there any mention in the Act of Parliament that contains the Grant of the Subsidy of any Expence that the King had been at how boldly soever it is asserted by our Author But the citing of an Act of Parliament had an Air of Truth in it which might deceive an unwary Reader IV. He pretends to lessen the Credit of the Decisions of the Universities since they had supposed that the first Marriage with P. Arthur was consumated of which he doubts and proposes the common Objections against it of P. Arthur's Age and of his dying soon after his Marriage He also saith That tho the first Marriage had been consummated many Learned Men of whom he names only Fisher and Tonstal and takes the rest on Sander's Words thought the Pope might dispence with it and in Conclusion he cites the Act of Parliament passed in the beginning of Queen Maries Reign condemning her Mothers Divorce in which mention
been extremely arrogant and obstinate and zealous beyond knowledg and tho they had suffered for a good Cause yet suffering for it on good or reasonable grounds as neither themselves being any way learned nor pretending the Authority of any Church nor relying on any present Teachers but on the certainty of their own private Judgment interpreting Scripture as you may see And here some Instances are given but if this Period will close it self it may for our Author who seldom takes care of such small matters leaves it in this unfinished condition I will not examine the truth of this Maxim but will only take notice that since all Protestants agree in this that the Ground of our Faith is that which appears to us to be the Sense of the Scripture our Author hath by this Limitation of his former gentleness towards us delivered us all over to the Secular Arm and so God have Mercy on our Souls for it is plain he will have none upon our Bodies XI He quarrels with the Privy-Council for imprisoning of Bonner because he said he would observe the Injunctions that were sent him if they were not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and to 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 But since he had a mind to blacken that time he might have as well said that they found fault with him because he promised to obey the Injunctions if they were not contrary to Gods Law and that thereby it appeared that they preferred their Injunctions to the Laws of God as well as to the Laws of the Church and by our Author 's taking no notice of the first Branch of Bonner's Exception it may be inferred That all his Concern is about the Laws of the Church and so they be secured he troubles himself little what becomes of the Law of God But if he had weighed this matter as he ought to do he would have found that this Exception is very ill grounded When a Form of a Subscription is demanded there is no Government in the World that will accept of one that indeed signifies nothing at all for it is visible that a Subscription made with those Reserves signifies nothing therefore if Bonner had acted as became his Character he should have directly refused the Subscription of such Injunctions as he found to be contrary to the Laws of God or to such Laws of the Church as he thought bound his Conscience But the Protestation he made gave a very just ground to the Government to proceed against him according to Law. XII Our Author intending to aggravate the Proceedings against Gardiner shews his great Judgment in setting down the Article relating to the Kings Supremacy at full length whereas he had only named the others for he could have invented nothing that must needs render all his Exceptions to the King's Supremacy more visibly unjust than this doth which is in these Words 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 all Errors and Heresies and other Enormities and Abuses so that the same Alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scriptures or Law of God. This was no other than what Gardiner had over and over again both by his Oaths and his Writings advanced and the restriction set on it was so just that one would think there lay no possible Exception to it Here there is no claim to the declaring what were Errors and Heresies but only to the repressing them and this is done by the Secular Arm even where men are burnt for Heresie Besides the Power that according to our Author belongs to the Pastors of the Church is either founded on the Scriptures or it is not if it is not founded on the Scriptures there is no great regard to be had to it but if it is founded on it then it it clearly excepted by the words of this Article so it is hard to see of what use this is to our Author unless it be to shew him his Injustice XIII He tells us That all that which had been done under King Henry and King Edward was Annulled by an equal Authority under Queen Mary But tho I acknowledg he was both the Soveraign and the Parliament yet there was neither Justice nor Moderation in the Charge now made equal to what had been done before A great deal might be said concerning the Election of the Members of Parliament and the Practices upon them and of the turning out a Multitude of the Clergy before the Laws were changed The Disorders and Irregularities in the Disputes had nothing of that fair Dealing in them that had appeared in King Edward's time and whereas all the Severity of King Edward's days was the Imprisoning of three or four Bishops and the turning out some of the other Clergy he knows well how matters went under Queen Mary So that we cannot be denied this Glory that a Spirit of Justice and Moderation appear'd at every time that the Reformation prevail'd Whereas things went much otherwise in this sad Revolution in which our Author Glories so much So that if the good or ill Behaviours of the several Parties as they had their turns in the Administration of Affairs furnishes a just Prejudice even in favour of the Cause it self we have this on our side as fully as we can wish for XIV He tells us That the Bishoprick of Durham was first kept void in King Edward's days and last of all it was by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue If our Author had examined the Records of Parliament he would have found that the Act that related to the Bishoprick of Durham did not at all propose the Increase of the Kings Revenue but the dividing of one Bishoprick into two and the raising and endowing of a new Cathedral Church all which must have risen to about Four thousand Marks of old Rents which considering how long Lands were let near the Borders did certainly very near exhaust the whole Revenue of that See. This is indeed of no great Importance to the main Cause For if sacrilegious Men went into the Reformation hoping to enrich themselves by it this is nothing but what falls out in all great Revolutions And it is plain our Author took up general Reports very easily that so he might make a Clamour with them against our Church But if some that gave an outward compliance to the Doctrine of our Church were really a Reproach to it he of all Men for a certain Reason ought not to insist on it Since we are no more accountable for the Duke of Northumberland's Actions than we are for his own XV. He tells us That the Bishops turned out
the Civil and Temporal Heads of our Church XXIV He tells us that the Monks could not give away that which they had only for term of Life I know not how this comes to be delivered by our Author at a time when the surrender of so many Charters to the King hath been judged Legal though it was made by men who had no Title to these and who were so far from having a Right to them for Term of Life that they had only the Administration of them in an Annual Magistracy so that our Author had best consider how he advances such Positions lest he doth as much hurt one way as he thinks to do service another In a word our Author hath pleaded the Cause of the Monasteries and hath arraigned the Suppression of them severely tho as he said concerning the burning of Hereticks he would not be thought to plead for it in this place XXV He accuses King Henry for giving Dispensations in matters of Marriage against Ecclesiastical Canons and because he declared all Marriages to be lawful that were not against Gods Law Here if in any thing the perverseness of the Church of Rome appears or rather their design to oblige the World to have oft recourse to them to pay them well and to depend much on them they have prohibited Marriage in many degrees that were not forbid by the Law of God and to ballance this they have suffered Marriages to be contracted in the Degrees forbid by God for the Pope's Power of Dispensing is promoted both ways they have added a new Contrivance of Spiritual Kindred and as the Prohibitions that they have set up were unknown to the Ancient Church so the Degrees that they have declared dispensable were believed by the Ancient Church to be moral and indispensable And yet after all this corruption of Ecclesiastical Discipline they are in great wrath at the Reformers because they thought it was fit to return to the Degrees forbid by the Law of Moses and to cut off these superadded Prohibitions which were inventions to bring grist to that Mill where all things were to be had so men will come up to the Price There follow here a great many Instances in which King Henry exercised his Supremacy which our Author aggravates all he can But the Considerations that were proposed in the first Part seem fully to satisfie all the difficulties that can be thought to arise out of them XXVI He tells us that such of the Privy Council as complied not with the Changes made in King Edward's Days were turned out after some time and names Bishop Tonstal Wriothesly the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel and he adds That the King had but one Parliament continued by Prorogation from Session to Session till at last it ended in the Death of the King. Here are Matters of no great Consequence I confess but these shew how careless our Author was in examining the Story of our Reformation and how easy he was to take up any Reports that might blast it It will not appear a very extraordinary thing to see Privy Counsellors turned out that do not concur with the Designs that prevail Some such things have possibly fallen out in our own Time and Men have no great cause to complain of a severe Administration when this is all the Rigour that is shewed to those who oppose themselves to the Tide But our Author was misinformed in all these Particulars Tonstal went along with all that was done and was contented to protest in Parliament against some Laws but as soon as they were made he gave a ready Obedience to them and continued to be still in the Council during the Duke of Somerset's Ministry Wriothesly was not turned out till after some time but immediately upon King Henry's Death he had past an illegal Patent upon which to prevent a severer Sentence he resign'd his Place but he continued still to be of the Privy Council And the Earl of Arundel continued to be of the Privy Council for many Years and long after fell to be in ill terms with the Duke of Northumberland and upon that an Enquiry was made into his Administration and he was fined 12000 Pounds But it is no wonder to find our Author mistaken in matters of this Nature when in so publick a thing as that King Edward had but one Parliament in his whole Reign he hath not been at the pains to turn over the Book of Statutes for there he would have found that King Edward's first Parliament was dissolved the 15th of April 1552 and a Second Parliament was called and opened the First of March following and was dissolved the last Day of that same Month. So that there were two Parliaments in this Reign and the Second was dissolved by an Act of the King 's and not by his Death I do confess these are not great Matters yet this may be drawn out of them that our Author who pretends to have examined the Transactions of that Time with so much exactness took things upon trust without giving himself the trouble to enquire into them so critically as was necessary for one that was resolved to pass a Judgment upon them XXVII He expostulates upon the Inhibition of preaching put upon the Bishops except in their own Cathedrals which agrees ill with the Censure that Fox passes upon them as Dumb Prelates And after this there was a general Inhibition on the whole Clergy hindring them to preach till a Uniform Order of Doctrine should be set out in which some Bishops and other Learned Men were then employed by the King's Order As for this Inhibition upon Bishops to preach except in their Cathedrals it is a Fiction of our Author's for which he can give no Voucher they were not so much as restrained from giving Licences to preach much less to preach themselves over their Diocess The second and general Restraint as it was but for a very short while so the Thing is very doubtful and stands only on Fuller's Credit who was too careless a Writer to be appealed to in any Matter of Consequence XXVIII Our Author cites here the Discourse of Communion in one kind which by all appearance is that lately writ by the Bishop of Meaux This shews that the Author and the Publisher is the same Person though others pretend that the Author is dead many Years ago But it seems the Publisher thought fit at least to add some new touches and since he did that he might have thought it worth the while to have examined at least the Records published by Dr. Burnet and his History it self might have been considered as well as Mr. Fullers and Dr. Heylins But since it seems our Author thought the Discourse of the Communion in one kind fit to be recommended by him I will take the liberty to recommend the Answer to it in French by Monsieur Larroque and that lately writ in English in which the disingenuity of the Discourse
Judgment of all these positions which are laid down as the Foundation of this Work. The First is That the two principal Offices which the Clergy have received from Christ are 1. To determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judg what is Truth and what are Errors in Faith and Worship 2. To teach and promulgate this Truth and to execute Church-censures on those who receive it not All this is true but since our Author doth not prove that the Clergy are infallible in their Decisions which is not so much as pretended by any with relation to National Churches this only proves that it is the duty of the Clergy to declare and publish the truth but as the Body of a National Clergy may err so in case it should actually err can it be supposed that the People and the Prince are bound to err with it Synods are of great use for the Unity of the Church and a vast respect is due to their Decisions but since our Author names the Synods of the Arrians the many Synods that they had which were very numerous and were gathered from all parts gave them all the advantages from this Authority that could be desired so that if the Council of Nice had not had truth of its side I do not see why the Visible Authority should not rather be thought to lye on the Arrian side The Princes Authorizing a Synod or his Opposing it is to be justified or condemned from the Decisions that are made by it if they are good he ought to support them and if they are bad he ought to oppose them and in this he must judg for himself as every other man must do the best he can as knowing that he must be judged by God. The Second is That the Clergy cannot make over this Authority to the Secular Governour being charged by Christ to execute it to the end of the World. Upon which he arraigns Two things 1. The Clergies binding themselves never to make any Decisions in matters of Faith or Worship till they had first obtained the consent of the Secular Governour 2. The Clergies Authorizing the Secular Governour or those whom he should nominate to determine those matters in their stead It is certain no Clergy in the World can make any such Deputation and if any have done it it was a Personal Act of theirs which was null of it self and did not indeed bind those who made it it being of its own nature unlawful but much less can it bind their Successors but if the Church of England never did neither the one nor the other what a Prevaricator and False Accuser is he who as he lied long to God and Man when he pretended to be of this Church so resolves now to lye concerning this Church as much as ever he did to it The submission of the Clergy related only to New Canons and Constitutions as the other Act empowering a select number to be nominated by the King to form a Body of a Canon-Law related only to the matters of the Government of the Church the Religion and Worship had no relation to it so a compromise as to matters of Government is very unjustly stretched when this is made a surrender of the Authority of determining and declaring matters relating to Doctrine and Worship which no Church-man without breach of the most sacred of all Trusts can deliver up but in the matters of Ecclesiastical Policy all States in the World have felt enough from the Yoke of the Papacy to give them just reason to assure themselves against any more of such Ecclesiastical Tyranny besides that in all the engagements tho made in Terms that are general such as are all Oaths of Obedience and in particular those that are made by Prelates to the Popes exceptions are still understood even when they are not expressed As long then as the Church enjoys a Protection from the Civil Authority she is bound to make returns of all engagements not only of Submission but of Obedience But tho the one is perpetual the other has its limits and when the Church finds its oppressions from the Civil Power really to over-ballance the Protection that she receives from it in that case she must resolve to fall into a state of Persecution and all the engagements that any body of the Clergy have made relating only to the maintaining a peacable Correspondence with the Civil Powers they do not at all bind up Church-men from doing their Duty in case the Civil Authority sets it self to overthrow Religion Besides when both Religion and the Worship and the Constitution of a Church is once established the adding new Canons may perhaps be of great use to a Church but yet it cannot be supposed to be so indispensably necessary but that rather than give any distaste to the Soveraign they may content themselves with what they have without asking new Canons and a Church under a Body of Canons may likewise resign up the compiling of these into a new System and the leaving out such as are found inconsistent with the Publick Peace to such persons as shall be nominated by the Prince but all this how general soever the words may be hath still a tacit exception in it which all that know the Principles of Law will grant The Third Thesis is That the Prince cannot depose any of his Clergy without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or their Ecclesiastical Superiors and in particular of the Patriarch In this the matter must still be reduced to the former Point Either the Grounds of such a Deposition are in themselves just or not if they are just the Prince may as lawfully hinder any Church-man from corrupting his Subjects while he is supported by a Publick Authority or a setled Revenue as he may hinder a man that hath the Plague on him from going about to infect his People for his deposing such a one is only the taking the Civil Encouragement from him but when this is done unjustly it is without doubt an act of high Oppression in the Prince and as for the Person Deposed and those over whom he was set they are to consider according to the Rules of Prudence whether the present Case is of such importance that it will ballance the inconveniences of their throwing themselves into a state of Persecution for it is to be confessed that Church-men have by their office an indefinite Authority of feeding the Flock which cannot be dissolved by any act of the Princes but the appropriating this to such a Precinct and the supporting it by Civil Encouragements is a humane thing and is therefore subject to the Soveraign Power The Princes of Iudah notwithstanding an express Law of God which appropriated the Priesthood and the High-Priesthood to such a Family and Race of men did turn them oft out and Iehosaphat sent to his Princes to teach in the cities of Iudah and with them he sent about also Priests and Levites
by Queen Mary were Ejected because the greater part of them were Married upon which he gives some grounds to justifie that Sentence I will not here examine the Point of the Unlawfulness of the Marriage of the Clergy It is not so much as pretended to be founded on Scripture and the Discipline of the Church hath been and is to this day very various in that Matter But this is certain that a Law being made in King Edward's days allowing the Marriage of the Clergy the Queen upon the repeal of that Law granted a Commission to some Bishops to examine four of King Edward's Bishops and to try if they were Married and upon that to deprive them This was an Act of the Queen Civil Power so that the Deprivation according to our Author 's own Principles was done by Virtue of that Commission and was by consequence void It was also most unjust with Relation to the Civil Power For these Bishops having been married under the Protection of a Law that warranted it that Law must still justifie them for what was passed and the repeal of it tho it might Impower the Queen to proceed for the future against those of the Clergy that should contract Marriage yet it was against all the Rules of Justice to deprive them by Virtue of a Commission from the Queen for an Action that was warranted by a Law then in being But there was another more extravagant Commission by which three other Bishops are represented as not having behaved themselves well and that as the Queen credibly understood they had both Preach'd erroneous Doctrines and had carried themselves contrary to the Laws of God and the practice of the Universal Church And therefore She orders these Persons to proceed against them either according to the Ecclesiastical Canons or the Laws of the Land and declare their Bishopricks void as they were indeed already void Now our Author will shew his great reading in an instance that cannot be disputed if he can find a President for such a Commission as this is in all History or a Warrant for it among all those Canons for which he pretends so much Respect and Zeal And thus he hath A Deprivation of seven Bishops done by the Civil Authority and without so much as the Colour of Justice XVI The second Reason he gives for their Deprivation was their not acknowledging of any Supremacy in the Roman-Patriarch and here as elsewhere he seems to plead for no higher Authority to the Pope but that of a Patriarch But not to repeat what was said upon this in the general Considerations the acknowledging of that Power in the Pope would not have served turn It was never demanded of the Clergy and would certainly not have been accepted XVII Another Reason was their refusing to officiate according to the Liturgies received and used by the whole Catholick Church for near a 1000 years There is some Modesty in this Pretension which carries up the Abuses no higher than a 1000 years Tho as to the greater part of them and the greatest of them all which is the Adoration of the Host there is no just claim to the half of that Antiquity Yet if the Church of Rome will give us the first 500 years we will not be much concerned in the 1000 that comes next Our Author spake too wide when he named the whole Catholick Church he should have said the Western-Church if he would have spoke exactly And for this Pretension to a 1000 years any that will compare the Missals that have been printed by Card. Bona and F. Mabillon with the present Roman Missals will soon find that the Roman Missal of the last Age was far different from what it had been or a 1000 years before There is one Particular in which indeed they seem both to agree and yet by which the change of the Doctrine of the Church is very conspicuous in the so much disputed Point concerning the Presence in the Sacrament After the 5th Century that a sort of an Invocation of Saints was received by which tho they were not immediately prayed to yet Prayers were put up to God to hear us upon the account of their Intercession There are some Prayers in some Ancient Missals that mention the offering up of that Sacrifice to their Honour and that pray God to accept of it on the account of their Intercession Now in the Opinion of the Church of England that considers the Communion as a commemorative Sacrifice of the Death of Christ and as a Sacrifice of Praise that is offered up to God upon it these Words bear a good Sense which is that to honour the Memory of such Saints their Holy-days were days of Communion and this Action is prayed to be accepted of God on the account of their Intercession In which there is nothing to be blamed but the Superstition of praying to God with regard to their Intercession But one sees a good Sense in those Collects Yet these very Collects are Nonsense or down-right Blasphemous in the present State of the Roman Church in which the Sacrifice of the Mass is believed to be the very Body and Blood of Christ which are there offered up so as to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and the Living Now to say That this is offered up to the Honour of a Saint or to Pray that it may be accepted by Virtue of their Intercession is the most extravagant and impious thing that can be imagined So that this change of Doctrine hath rendred the Canon of the Mass even in those things for which they can pretend to some Antiquity both Impious and Blasphemous in the Opinion and Sense which is now generally received in that Church XVIII Our Author censures a Clause in an Act passed in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign in which it is declared That in all time coming Doctrines are to be judged and determined to be Heresies by the High Court of Parliament with the Assent of the Clergy in their Convocation as if by this the Clergy could not pass a Judgment of Heresy without the Concurrence of the Parliament But Heresy being declared a Crime that inferred a Civil Punishment the Parliament had all possible Reason to make their own Concurrence necessary to a Judgment upon which many Civil Effects were to follow If the Judgment of Heresy went no further than Spritual Censures then this Limitation upon the Clergy might be blamed a little What is this but what is practiced at present in France in which the Censure that the present Pope passed in May 1679. condemning some of the impious Opinions of the modern Casuists was declared to be of no force because it flowed from the Pope with the Court of the Inquisition which is not received in that Kingdom And neither the Bulls of Popes nor the Decrees of Council are of any force there but as they are verified in Parliament tho their Parliaments come far short of the Authority
here while he is in England he will condemn these treasonable Doctrines The ground upon which he condemns them is also suitable to the Condemnation it self For he says that this is the Opinion of several Catholicks This was modestly expressed For tho it is true that several of those he calls Catholicks are of this mind yet all Catholicks are not of it So that the Doctrine of murdering Kings is at least a probable one and since the Decrees of the Church of Rome for the deposing of Princes fall not only on those that are Hereticks themselves but even on the Fautors and Favourers of Hereticks I do not see how his Majesty's Life is secured For besides the Protection and Liberty that he grants to Hereticks of his own Dominions he hath received and encouraged the Refuges of another Prince which is to be a Favourer of Heresy of the worst sort So that if Innuendoes were in fashion I do not see how our Author could defend himself against an Indictment of Treason or at least against an Information Our Author to let us see how wary he is in his Concessions as he calls them ends the Paragraph with another It shall be granted here For it is plain he will not loose an inch of all the Papal Pretensions but will preserve them entire to a better time XXXIX Our Author pretends that Q. Elizabeth's Supremacy was carried much higher than had been granted by the former Clergy under K. Henry the 8th The Allegation is false for the Supremacy was carried much higher under King Henry than it was under Queen Elizabeth who as she would not accept of the Title of Head of the Church so she explained her Supremacy both in her own Injunctions and in the Acts of Convocation and Parliament that followed in so unexceptionable a manner that our Author himself hath nothing to object to it He seems also to infinuate as if the King's Supremacy were asserted by us as a Grant of the Clergy whereas we pretend to no such thing The Civil Supremacy that we ascribe to our Princes is founded on the Laws of God on the Rules of Humane Society on the Laws of England and on the Practice of the Church for many Ages and King Henry receiv'd no new strengthning of his Title by the Act of the Clergy which did not confer any new Authority on him but only declared that which was already inherent in him XL. Our Author enters into a long Discourse to prove the Invalidity of Orders granted in our Church which he doth so weakly and yet as he doth all other things so tediously and with so much Confusion that I have no mind to follow him in all his wandrings He seems to question the Authority of Suffragan Bishops who though they were limited as to their Iurisdiction yet as to their Order they were the same with the other Bishops The Proceedings in Queen Mary's Time were too full of Irregularity and Violence to be brought as Proofs that the Orders given by King Edward's Book were not valid In a word the Foundation of that false Opinion of some of the Church of Rome was that ever since the Time of the Council of Florence the Form in which Priests Orders were conferred was believed to be the delivering the Sacred Vessels with a power to offer Sacrifices for the Dead and Living So they reckoned that we had no true Priests since that Ceremony was struck out of our Ordinal But the folly of all this is apparent since Men began to examine the Ancient Rituals and those which have been published by Morinus shew that as this Rite is peculiar to the Roman Church so it was not received before the Ninth Century And since all Ordinations during the first Eight Centuries were done by the Imposition of Hands and Prayer then there can be no reason to question our Orders since we retain still all that the Ancient Church thought necessary As for the common Observation of our Ordinals not being enacted by Queen Elizabeth before the Eighth Year of her Reign it hath been so oft made and answered that I am 〈…〉 see our Author urge it any further Would he that hath disputed so much against the Civil Authorities medling in Matters Sacred annul our Orders because the Law was not so clearly worded with relation to that part of our Offices The most that can possibly be made out of this is that the Ordinations were not quite legal so that one might have disputed the paiment of the Fruits But this hath no relation to us as we are a Church in that the Book of Ordinations having been annexed to the Book of Common-Prayer in King Edward the Sixth's Time the reviving of the Book of Common-Prayer in Queen Elizabeth's Time was considered as including the Book of Ordinations Though it s not being expresly named this gave occasion to Bonner to question the validity of them in Law. Upon which the Explanatory Act passed declaring that it had been the Intention of the Parliament to include that in the Book of Common-Prayer So that this Act only declared the Law but did not create any new Right I have now gone over all that I judged most material in this tedious Book The darkness of the stile the many unfinished Periods the frequent Repetitions the many long Quotations to very little purpose above all the intricate way of Reasoning made it a very ungrateful thing to me to wrestle through it In it one may see how much a Man may labour and study to very little purpose For how unhappy soever the Author hath been in his pains it cannot be denied but he hath been at a great deal to compass it But a Man that neither sees things distinctly nor judges well of them the more he toils about them he entangles himself and his Reader so much the more So that never was so much pains taken to less purpose If our Author gives us many more Books of this size both as to Sincerity and good Reasoning he will quickly cure the World of the Mistake in which they were concerning him He passed once for a Learned Man and he had passed so still if he had not taken care to let the World see by so many repeated Essays how false a Title he hath to that Reputation which had fallen upon him But it seems his Sincerity and good Judgment are of a piece Otherwise as he could not obtrude on the World the falsehoods concerning latter times and the Ignorance of Antiquity that appears in all his Books so when so many have been at the pains to discover both his Mistakes and his Impostures He would either have confessed them or some way excused them But it is no wonder to see a Man that dissembled so long with God and that lied so oft to him serve the World now as he did his God for so many Years I pray God touch his Heart and give him a Repentance proportioned to the heinousness of his Sins by which he hath given so much Scandal to the Atheistical sort of Men who from him must be tempted to draw strange Consequences And he hath certainly brought a greater Reproach on that Church to which he hath gone over than all the Services he can ever render them in his useless and confounded Writings will be able to wipe off But to whom sovever he hath been a Reproach our Church hath no share in it since of him and of such as he is we must say They went out from us but they were not of us For if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us FINIS P. 82. ad finem From p. 140. Page 141. Adorat of the Euchar. p. 28. P. 139. Ephes. 5. 24. Col. 3. 20. Page 87 88. 2 Chron. 17. 7. 2 Chron 9. 5 8. V. 11. 2 Chron. 29. 5. V. 34. 2 Chron. 30. 23. Numb 9. 10. Ezra 7. 25. Nehem. 13. 28. Ludolph P. 20. lin 12. P. 21. Hist. Reform P. 1. Re◠Bo. 2. n. 10. Ibid n. 24. Nam qui Reginae odio vel speratae sec dum forsan notae futurae conjugis illecib◠titillatione Regem agi putant ij ex cordes plane toto quod aiunt coelo errare videntur Ibid. P. 22. Cott. Lib. Vit. B. 13. P. 23. ◠25. Printed in the Cabala P. 26. P. 28. P. 39. 25 Henry 8th n. 14. P. 41. Hist. Reform Rec. b. 2. n. 37 38 39. P. 51. P. 78 79. P. 57. P. 58. P. 64. P. 68. P. 71. P. ibid. P. 72. P. 84. P. 90. P. 93. P. 9◠P. ibid. P. 108. P. 110. P. 111. P. 119. P. 127. P. 134. P. 135. P. 142. P. 157. P. 160. Ibid. Tolet. can 10. §. 75. c. 13. 1040. Vita Gul. Abb. Dijon c. 4. P. 162. P. 176 273. P. 187. P. 208. P. 120. P. 2.