may be dissolv'd by the Prudence of Men that as they were erected by leave and confirmation of Princes so they may be dissolv'd by the same that the Bishop of Romes Patriarchate doth not extend beyond the sub-urbicary Churches that we are without the reach of his Jurisdiction and therefore that the power claim'd over us is an Invasion that did not Popes think fit to dispence with themselves for Perjury having sworn to keep inviolably the Decrees of the Eight first General Councils they would not in plain opposition to the a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7. Here the Council decrees that Ancient Customs should prevail that the Priviledges of all Churches in their distinct Provinces should be kept inviolable We desire the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate over the Britannic Churches should be prov'd to be an Antient Custom and if not that the Priviledges of these Churches may be preserv'd Nicene and b The Fathers of the Ephesine Council having decree'd that the Cyprian Prelates should hold their rights untouchâ—d and unviolated according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the Ancient Customs Ordaining their own Bishop and that the Bishop of Antioch who then pretended Jurisdiction over them as the Bishop of Rome now doth overs us should be excluded add farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Eph. Can. 8. Let the same be observ'd in other Diocesses and all Provinces every where That no Bishop occupy and other Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors If any do occupy any Province or subject it by force let him restore it Now we plead the Cyprian Priviledges and desire we may be exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome till it is prov'd that He or His Predecessors did from the Beginning exercise any power in these Churches Ephesine Canons pretend to any Jurisdiction over us That they so invading ought to be judg'd by a free Oecumenical Synod if such an one could be had but that this Remedy being praecluded us Each National Church has liberty to free her self from such Usurpation that the Church of England pleads the benefit of this Right and her Sovereigns having power to transfer Bishopricks might remove the Patriarchate from Rome to Canterbury and justly exclude any forreign Prelate from Jurisdiction within their Territories But that the power claim'd by the Pope however mollified by the Novices of that Church is more then Patriarchal and that it is not our Rule which this Author so much dislikes but Pope Leo's the c Ep. 54. 1st that propria perdit qui indebita concupiscit This plea of a Western Patriarchate is fatally confounded by that one plain Period of Bishop d True Dif part 2. Bilson As for his Patriarchate by God's law he hath none in this Realm for Six Hundred years after Christ he had none for the last 6 Hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none Above or against the Princes Sword he can have none to the subversion of the Faith and Oppression of his Brethren he ought to have none He must seek farther for Subjection to his Tribunal this land oweth him none So much for the first branch of this Thesis the 2d is that as the Prince cannot eject or depose the Clergy so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceas'd without the concurrence of the Clergy If by the concurrence of the Clergy he means that the Person assign'd by the Prince to any sacred office cannot execute it till he be ordain'd by the Clergy No one will deny it Or if he think that the Ordainer ought to lay hands on none but whom he esteems fit for the discharge of so sacred an Office here also we agree with him But how doth it follow that because Ordination which is consecrating Men to the work of the Holy Ministry is the proper Office of the Clergy the Prince may not recommend to the Church a fit Person so to be consecrated or assign to the Person already consecrated the place where he shall perform that Holy Work As for the Canons by him alledg'd they being Humane Institutions are not of Aeternal Obligation but changeable according to the different State of the Church If the 31st Apostolick Canon which excommunicates all who gain Benefices by the Interest of Secular Princes and forbids the People to communicate with them still oblige then we are exempted from Communion with the Bishop of Rome How comes the latter part of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which concerns the Election of Bishops still to be valid and the former part which limits the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs so long since to be null Why must the C. of England accept the 2d Nicene Council in matters of Discipline which the * Petr. De Marc. l. 6. c. 25. §. 8. Gallican Church rejected in matters of Faith Were the Canon of the Laodicean Council here cited pertinent to the purpose as it is not it being directed only against popular Elections yet why must that be indispensable when another Canon which enumerates the Canonical books of Scripture has so little Autority It is plain the manners of Elections have varied much in the divers States of the Church The Apostles and Apostolical Persons nominated their Successors afterwards Bishops were chose by the Clergy and the people after by the Bishops of the Province the Metropolitan ratifying the choice In process of time Emperors when become Christian interpos'd and constituted and confirm'd even Popes themselves * Marca de Conc. Imp. Sac cap. 8. Nor is this Power of Princes repugnant to Holy Scripture in which we find that * 1 King c. 2. v. 35. King Solomon put Zadok the Priest in the Room of Abiathar That * 2 Chr. 19.11 Jehosaphat set Amariah the Chief-Priest over the People in all matters of the Lord That He * v. 8. set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chief Fathers of Israel for the Judgment of the Lord and for Controversies As for his alledg'd Inconvenience that if temporal Governors can place and displace the Clergy they will make the Churches Synods to state divine matters according to their own minds and so the Church will not be praeserv'd incorrupt in her Doctrine and Discipline They who maintain the just rights of the Prince are not obliged to defend the abuse of them there is perhaps no power ordain'd for our good which may not be perverted to mischief were this right of placing and displacing left to a Patriarch or a Synod yet either of these might so manage their trust that a corrupted majority of Clergy might state divine matters according to their own mind and so the Doctrines of Christ be chang'd for the Traditions of men But to these objected Injuries which the Church may suffer from a bad Prince
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
Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat Regia authoritate editi In the thirty sixth of which Articles is also ratified the second corrected Form of Common-Prayer and the new Form of Ordination in these words Liber qui nuperrimè authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est continens modum formam orandi Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum Ecclesiae quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris maxime a Ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum gratiarum actione accipiendi approbandi posteritati commendandi sunt λ λ And also for the first new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments it must be granted that in the second year and second Parliament of the Kings Reign the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation gave their approbation and consent thereto as appears both by the Kings message to the Rebels of Cornwal where it is said That what-ever was contained in the new common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book c. was by Parliament established by the whole Clergy agreed by the Bishops of the Realm devised Fox p. 1189 and by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner where it is said yet more fully That after great and serious debating and long conference of the Bishops and other grave and well learned men in the holy Scriptures one uniform Order of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments hath been and is most Godly set forth not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament and of all other the learned men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial Fox p. 1186. And see much-what the same said in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter Fox p. 1212. 6. ν That such consent and such Constitutions of the Clergy of this Realm being not to be denied at least it will follow that the Reformation as touching the Common-Prayer-Book from the second year of his Reign and as touching the other Articles of Religion from the fifth was regular and canonical as being the act of the Clergy § 111 Thus have I here put you together the ordinary defence excepting the ultimum refugium The Reply thereto That Princes may reform in matters of Religion and of Faith without and against the major part of their Clergy of which hereafter which is made for the regularity of Edward the Sixth's Reformation To which now consider with me what it seemeth may reasonably be replyed tho some things cannot be so fully cleared till I have given you the rest of the Narration of this Kings Proceedings to which therefore I must refer you for them Reply to α To α then I answer That the Arch-Bishop acted not in the setting forth of these Injunctions as the Metropolitan but as one of the Sixteen Councellors whom Henry the Eighth nominated for the Government of his Son and in the same manner as he would have acted had he been Bishop of Asaph or Bangor Neither are the Injunctions grounded at all upon the Metropolitan's assent but on the Kings Supremacy nor do they make any mention of him or his authority but only of the Council in general and of their advice as you may see in what is before related § 108. Neither were those Canons being of humane constitution only conceived either by King Council or this Arch-Bishop to be of any force under this Regal Supremacy But secondly Suppose them in force and these Injunctions published by the Metropolitan's authority yet is not such authority made valid in such things when single without the concurrence of his Bishops by any such Canon For the very same Canon that saith Nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant Episcopi c. saith also Nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum Paraeciis Sic enim unanimitas erit See Can. Apost 35. Thirdly lastly every thing set forth by the advice of this Council is not necessarily so by the Arch-Bishops advice or vote because he is one of the Council For here the vote of the major part who were all Lay-men save himself and one Dr. Wotton if Bishop Tonstal's vote was cast out tho it were contrary to his vote bears the name of the whole § 112 To β. To β. That the advice of many Bishops was used in many of the Kings Injunctions unless in that touching the new Form of Common-Prayer is not evident that the advice of some Bishops was used in all is credible but those such as were presumed to be of the same inclinations with the King and Council as whatsoever colour the State is of it cannot want some Clergy of the same complexion For Example Cranmer and Ridley now called to consutation but Gardiner Tonstal Bonner Heath c. shut out and in Queen Mary's days contra That the advice of many Bishops used is not sufficient for to impose Laws on the rest where all have a decisive vote and where the legislative power lies in the major part viz. in a Synod to prevent Innovations by such Prelates as are singular in their opinions § 113 To γ. That King Edward claimed by his Supremacy according to the power which To γ. as I have shewed above § 39. c. was judged then to belong to it the giving of Laws to his Clergy not only for rectifying their practice but Doctrines only using the assistance of such Divines or other learned men as he thought fit to single out for this purpose as you may see In his prescribing the Doctrine of the Homilies unto them and also Before §. 108. In his injoyning them that whatsoever else should come from him they should see and cause it faithfully to be observed In his silencing the Ministery till something were drawn up by certain Bishops and other learned men congregated by his authority that should put an end to all controversies in Religion before § 109 In the stile of his Proclamation before the order of the Communion where he saith We would not have our Subjects so much to mislike our judgment as tho we could not discern what was to be done c. God be praised we know both what by his word is meet to be redressed and have an earnest mind by the advice of whom of our most dear Uncle and other of our privy Council with all diligence to set forth the same and In the last Articles to the Bishop of Winchester drawn up saith the Kings Diary by Bishop Ridley Pullâ—r 8. l. and Secretary Sir W. Peters which required his Subscription to several points of
ex hac altaris participatione Sacro-sanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione c. repleamur seems to be thus changed because Christ's body and blood were held by some only to be present to and received by the worthy Communicant and not to the Symbols And altho we be unworthy c. to offer unto thee any Sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service and command these our Prayers and Supplications put instead of panis sanctus calix salutes by the ministery of thy Holy Angels to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle formerly Altare before the sight of thy Divine Majesty c. § 149 Thus were things mended in the first Form of King Edward 2 Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer Book in relation to the same Sacrifice Stat 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. But in the latter Common-Prayer Book which came out a new-reformed three years after there is no oblation at all made nor no petition put up be tween the Consecration and the receiving of the Holy Mysteries but the one immediately follows the other The Collect of humble access We do not presume to come c. and the Lord's Prayer with its Preface Divinâ institutione formati audemus dicere and the Memorial or Prayer of Oblation which are put according to the manner of the Mass after the consecration of the holy Mysteries and before the receiving of them in the first Form are all removed in the second and the first placed before the Elements begin to be consecrated and the other two placed after the holy Mysteries are removed from the Altar or Table and are distributed to the Communicants and in the Prayer of Oblation the first part thereof We do celebrate and make the Memorial c. is omitted The reason of which alteration seems to be That so the new Service might still appear more remote from making any oblation to God of the consecrated Mysteries remaining on the Table or from making any request to God in the vertue of the Body and Blood of our Saviour there present § 150 But 3. Coucernâ—â—g the reduction of sâ—ne things â—ouching this matter in the new Cömon Prayer Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of K. Edward again in the last English Liturgy prepared for Scotland the sober moderation of those who governed the Church at this time thought fit to reduce things as far as without offence they might to the first Form of King Edward restoring all these Prayers to their former place again and re-inserting the Memorial in the Front of the Prayer of Oblation Moreover in the Prayer for the State of the Catholick Church adding these words We commend especially unto thy merciful goodness the Congregation here assembled to celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious death and sacrifice of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ before which Prayer also they order an oblation to be of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table All which they seem to have done as regretting the mistaken zeal of their Fore-fathers mis-led by Calvin and other forreign Reformers but not finding as yet a season for a more compleat reduction of the Reformation to the former universal practice of the Church of God § 151 Much complained of in Laudensium autocatacrisis Of all which things thus complains the contrary Party who looked upon their alterations with a zealous eye in Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 109. As for that wicked Sacrifice of the Mass which the Canon puts at the back of the Consecration the English i. e. the later Reformation of Common-Prayer Book under King Edward banisheth it all utterly out of their Book But the faction to shew their zeal in their reforming the Errors of the English Church their Mother 1. puts down here in our Book the Book sent to Scotland at the back of the Consecration their Memento and Prayer of Oblation 2. That Prayer of Thansgiving beginning O Lord c. we thy humble servants entirely desire which the English sets after the Communion in a place where it cannot be possibly abused as it is in the Mass for a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood they transpose and set it just in the old place where it stood in the order of Sarum at the back of the Consecration and before the Communion 3. The clause of the Missal which for its savour of a Corporal presence the English put out of this Prayer may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Christ Jesus they have here restored 4. That we may plainly understand that this Prayer is so transplanted and supplied for this very end that it may serve as it did of old in the Missal for a Prayer of Oblation of that unbloody Sacrifice by the Priest for the sins of the world behold the first eight lines of it which of old it had in the Missal but which in the Reformation the second Reformation under Edward were scraped out are plainly restored wherein we profess to make and over again to make before God's Divine Majesty a Memorial as Christ hath commanded Which making not only the Papists but Heylin speaking from Canterbury expounds far otherwise than either Andrews Hooker Mountague or the grossest of the English Divines for a true proper corporal visible unbloody sacrificing of Christ for which sacrificing first the Apostles and then all Ministers are as truly Priests tho Evangelical and after the order of Melchisedech as ever the Sons of Aaron were under the Law and the Communion-Table as true and proper an Altar as ever was the Brasen Altar of Moses you may see Dr. Heylin 's words in Antid p. 6. § 2. 5. After the Consecration and Oblation they put to the Lord's Prayer with the Missals Preface Audemus dicere Where the Papists tell us that the Priest having offered up in an unbloody Sacrifice the body of Christ for the reconciling of us to the Father becomes bold to say with a loud voice Pater noster The English to banish such absurdities put away that naughty Preface and removed the Prayer it self from that place But our men to shew their Orthodoxy repone the Prayer in the own old place and set before it the old Preface 6. The first English Prayer We do not presume c. which stood before the Consecration where the passages of eating Christ's Body and drinking Christ's Blood could not possibly be detorted to a corporal presence yet now in our Book must change the place and be brought to its old Stance after the Consecration and Oblation immediately before the Communion as a Prayer of humble access Thus Autocatacrisis sounded the Trumpet not without a sad storm falling afterward upon the heads of the English Clergy § 152 Aad the Câ—lemation of the Eucharist prohibited whâ—n note other to communicate wiâ—h the Priest All use of the Eucharist as a
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-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
Saxon Kings Alfred and Edward were of Opinion that they had a Supremacy as well over Ecclesiastical persons as Lay-men and that the Church which was within their Dominions was not out of their Jurisdiction or subject to a forreign Power and exempted from the Laws of the Countrey as Becket Anselm and others afterwards fiercely contended And again * Ex ipsius Alfredi legibus constat vel Suprematum ilium Romanum istis quidem temporibus nondum eo modo quo posterioribus saeculis sese extulisse scilicet ut Christiani Principes angustius regnarent vel si eatenus pertigerit non tamen eo usque se ei adjeci sse Alfred lb. From his King Alfred's laws it is evident either that the Roman Supremacy was not yet risen to that heighth as in after Ages so as to lessen the Jurisdiction of Christian Princes or if it was yet that King Alfred did not so far subject himself to it Nay so far was King Alfred from paying any such Subjection that we are told * Rex viam ingressus est qua universali isti Imperio quod crassis temporibus recens extruxerant Pontificii absolvere deproperarant ruinam excidium minaretur l. 3. par 98. He found out away to ruine and destroy that Universal Empire which the Romanists in those dark Ages had newly founded and were hastning to finish Which is spoken in reference to his restoring the second Commandment expung'd out of the Decalogue of which thus that Author * Neque hoc sane penitus omittendum videtur quod inter Decalogum recitandum secundum quidem Praeceptum de sculptilibus non faciendis ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni ante centum annos celebrati suo loco plane praetermissum est Veruntamen ut ex ipso Sanctorum Bibliorum contextu quod deest suppleretur post decimum quod dicimus mandatum aliud insuperad justum Numerum absolvendum adjicitur Non tibi facies Deos aureos Quod cum ab ipso Rege subjungutur Ecclesiam jam turn corrupti dogmatis arguit rectae autem confessionis Regi testimonium perhibet l. 2. par 5. And here it may not be pass'd over that in reciting the Decalogue the second Commandment concerning the not making of graven Images was according to the use of the 2d Nicene Council which was celebrated am 100 Years before in its place omitted But that this defect might be supplied out of the context of the Holy Bible after that which we call the Tenth Commandment another was added to complete the just Number in these words Thou shalt not make to thy self any Gods of Gold Which being added by the King himself as it doth argue the Church to have been corrupt in her Doctrine so it is a testimony of the Kings Orthodoxy From which one Instance it is plain that contrary to the pretensions of our Author King Edward the 6th was not the 1st that took upon him to Reform Liturgies for King Alfred here restores the Decalogue to its primitive Integrity to judge what is agreeable to the word of God for He supply's the defect which he finds in the Missal from the Scriptures to judge contrary to the Determinations of the Church for the Church is here said to have been corrupt in that Doctrine in which the King was Orthodox to alter the Constitutions of General Councils because repugnant to the law of God for this Omission of the Commandment was ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni and the Worshipping of Images here forbidden was introduc'd by that Council which the Romanists acknowledge General These passages cited I take to be some of the perperam scripta which the Publisher of that life mentions in the * Errores Authoris retinuimus perperam scripta medicari potius quam tollere maluimus Praeface And accordingly we find that whatsoever is advanc'd against the Papal Autority in the Text is qualified in the Comment and it is plain that King Alfred was a greater Adversary to the power of the Pope then his Alumnus the Annotator so that it is matter of surprize to find him appear in the Frontispiece of this Treatise of Church Government who was so great an Enemy to the Anti-regal designs of it 3ly As to the power of calling Synods we need no more to clear this point then the very words of the Statute by him urg'd 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. Where it is said that the Kings Humble and Obedient Subjects the Clergy of the Realm of England had acknowledg'd according to the truth that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled only by the Kings Writ Which is farther evident from the ancient form of calling and dissolving Synods by a Writ in each case directed to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as may be seen in Dr. Heylin * Ref. Justif p. 1. c. 2. The Clergy did indeed before this act of King Henry 8th promulge and execute those Canons by their own autority which they here promise not to put in Execution without the King's consent But since no such Canons could be put in ure till made nor be made but by the Clergy assembled nor the Clergy be assembled but only by the King 's Writ this executing of Canons did in effect as much before this Statute as after depend upon the King's pleasure 4ly As for visiting Ecclesiastical Persons and reforming Errors and Haeresies by proper Delegates this is a necessary consequence from the Supremacy they challeng'd Without such a Power how shall the Confessor regere Ecclesiam ab injuriosis defendere If such a Power as this be inconsistent with the Principles even of Roman-Catholiques Whence is it that we find Articles sent from Queen Mary to Bp. Bonner to be put in Execution by him and his Officers within his Diocess Whence is it that we find a Commission directed to some Bishops to deprive the Reformed Bishops But to speak of former times if our Kings had not such a Power Whence is it that in King Henry the fourth's Reign upon the Increase of Lollardy We find the Clergy thus petitioning that Prince in the Names of the Clergy and Praelates of the Kingdom of England * Quatenus inclytissimorum progenitorum antecessorum vestrorum laudabilia vestigia gratiose considerantes dignetur vestra Regia celsitudo pro conservatione dictae Ecclesiae Anglicanae ad Dei laudem c. super novitatibus excessibus praedictis in praesenti Parliamento providered de remedio opportuno Tw c. 5. par 19. That according to the Example of his Royal Predecessors He would find out some remedy for the Haeresies and Innovations then praevailing Whence is it that we find a Commission from that King as Defender of the Catholick Faith to impower certain Persons to seize upon Haeretical Books and bring them before his Council and such as after Proclamation be found to hold such Opinions to be call'd and examined before
in this Matter As for this Objection of the Clergy's being aw'd by fear in this Act he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the then Lady Mary which shews the vanity of it p. 142. I am well assur'd saith She speaking of Edward VI. in her Letter to the Council that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it That could an Oecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops unjustly excluded and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first bribed with Mony and promises of Church-praeferment or praeengag'd by Oaths to comply with the Vsurpations of a praetended Spiritual Monarch is not to be accounted a lawful Oecumenical Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such usurpations This is a Thesis which needs no Application I proceed to his Sixth Thesis That the Judgment and consent of some Clergy-men of a Province when they are the lesser part cannot be call'd the judgment and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province This Assertion that a lesser part is not aequall to the Whole is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse and the Reader may hence be convinc'd that our Author doth sometimes travel in the * Educ p. 119. High road of Demonstration But here we desire it may be prov'd either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obey'd rather then the Major part judging contrary to it In the mean time it is easily reply'd that the judgment and consent of some few Bishops * Soave Hist Conc. Tr. p. 153. suppose 48. Bishops and 5. Cardinals giving Canonical Autority to books Apocryphal and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original cannot be esteem'd the judgment and consent of the Catholic Church 7th Thesis That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils or also to a National Synod The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy but because every one must give an account of his own Faith every one is oblig'd to take care that what he submits to the belief of be consistent with his Christianity I am oblig'd to pay all submission to the Church-Autority but the Church having bounds within which she ought to be restrain'd in her Determinations if she transgresses these Limits and acts against that Christianity which she professes to maintain I may rather refuse obedience then forfeit my Christianity If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgment I am answerable for it at Gods Tribunal not because I usurped a right which was never granted me but because I misus'd a Liberty which was indulg'd me This we take to be the case of each private Christian and farther that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right and Worship God as is praescrib'd himself but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions ought to use all those means of discovering the Truth which God has afforded viz. consulting the Pastours of the Church reading the word of God c. And that having discover'd it He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embrac'd but not without the use of that Judgment and Discretion which to them also is allowed If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to enquire on which side God is and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter He is not on the Churches side for her Spiritual Autority Thus a good King of Israel might * 2 King 38.22 take away the High places and Altars and say unto Judah and Jerusalem Ye shall Worship before the Altar at Jerusalem because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses Nor is it any Praejudice against it * 2 King 23.9 That the Priests of the High places refus'd to come up to the Altar at Jerusalem Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute * Mat. 26.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been prov'd to be Felo de se and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have establish'd When the Gallican Church shall have receiv'd all the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils When the Western Patriach shall have rechang'd his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum it may then be seasonable to examine How far National Churches are oblig'd by things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account But I may not omit for the Reader 's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as pag. 38. It is enacted the 32d Hen. 8.26 c. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to God's word and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion c. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believ'd Obey'd c. Vpon which he makes this learned Note Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word i. e. when private Men think them to be so yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrain'd and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word i. e. when the setters forth believe them to be so To obey a thing defin'd according to God's word and to obey a thing defin'd as being according to God's word are Injunctions very different Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have clear'd this point and a School-boy that was to turn this passage into Latin would have known that as is put for which Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus All Decrees and Ordinances which according to Gods word