Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates And of this Act such use was made tho possibly beyond the true intention of it that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below § 145. Which saith he being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which Estate they have continued without any legal interruption from that time to this Thus He. Now to go on Consequently we find in 2. Edw 6.1 c. the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of common-Common-Prayer c therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. And in Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same common-Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons who shall offend against this Act and Statute Which Clause by vertue of this Act and the like implies that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence or ought to excommunicate in all matters wherein the King and Parliament command it Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act forementioned p. 44. § 26. 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction there ascribed to the King or Queen involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication as well as others not for the King to exercise this himself but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute or not execute it so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King contrary to the Second and Third Thesis And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws may not correct what they judge Heresies Errors Vices c without the Kings consent had thereto See the Acts set down before § 31 32 33 c. it is but reasonable that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent for not obeying such Laws or for being thought guilty of such Crimes And this is the reason I suppose of Dr. Heylins Observation Hist of Reform p. 94. That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped that it was scarce able to fly abroad the Sentence of Excommunication wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward and of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England § 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3 and 4. Edw. 6.11 c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons half Seculars to be nominated by him as was done in Henry the Eighth's days in 35. Hen. 8.16 c. 27. Hen. 8.15 c. 25.19 c. who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church and these reformed Laws only established by a major part of them and published by the Kings Proclamation thence forward to stand in force The Statute runs thus Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal therefore you see the Statutes concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12 c. above-mentioned yet the same as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes having not of long time been put in ure nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted c that the Kings Majesty shall from henceforth during Three years have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy whereof Four to be Bishops and Sixteen of the Temporalty whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used and to gather order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought to his Majesty his said Council and them or the more part of them convenient to be used practiced or set forth within this his Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall by vertue of this present Act be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and no other Any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding § 42 Again we find in the same Act Six Prelates and Six others such as the King should nominate delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests and this devised by them and set forth under the Great Seal to be used and none other The words are these Forasmuch as that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties dominions some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests be it therefore Enacted that such Form as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law by the King to be appointed or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used and none other any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Here the King and Parliament assume power to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church and by their Delegates to constitute and by their sole Act to authorize new without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome and his Authority Power and Jurisdiction And I shall never consent nor
Church-Government PART V. A RELATION OF THE English Reformation AND The lawfulness thereof examined by the THESES deliver'd in the Four former Parts Printed at OXFORD 1687. The CONTENTS CHAP. I. EIGHT Theses pre-posed whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation § 1. CHAP. II. Three Heads of this Discourse I. 1. Head How the English Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals § 17. And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it § 23. CHAP. III. II. 2. Head Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince § 26. n. 2. 1. In the times of Henry the Eighth CHAP. IV. 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth § 38. CHAP. V. The former Supremacy disclaimed by Queen Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Pope's Supremacy re-acknowledged § 48. And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church And the Church-doctrine under King Edward condemned § 51. That Queen Maries Clergy was a lawful Clergy That the Bishops in King Edward's days were not lawfully ejected § 54. Neither as to the Authority ejecting them Nor as to the Cause That the Bishops deprived in Queen Mary's days were lawfully ejected Both as to the Cause And as to the Judge § 64. Where Concerning the burning of those who in Queen Mary's days were by the Church condemned of Heresy § 65. And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places CHAP. VI. 3. In the times of Queen Elizabeth That as ample a Supremacy was claimed and by Parliament conferred on her as on King Henry or Edward § 70. Where Concerning certain qualifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed § 72. And the Replyes to them But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy § 77. CHAP. VII III. 3. Head How according to such Supremacy assumed these three Princes acted in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 78. 1. The Actings of Henry the Eighth in Ecclesiastical Affairs In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastical Laws and compiling a new body of them In putting forth a model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Six Articles § 81. Where Concerning the complaints made by Protestants of his abuse of the Supremacy In the consecrating and confirming of Bishops and Metropolitans § 86. In the putting down of Monasteries c. § 87. The pretences thereof § 89. Reflections upon these pretences § 93. In the dispensing with the former Church Canons concerning Marriages Fasts Holy days c. § 99. In the publishing and afterward prohibiting of the Scriptures in a vulgar tongue § 101. CHAP. VIII 2. The Actings of King Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 104. 1. Set down first more generally In putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Homilies sending Commissions thro the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy c. In the prohibition of Preaching till he had setled Religion The Defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings in matters of Religion The Reply thereto § 111. Where Concerning the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations § 119. CHAP. IX 2. More particularly In sending certain Doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Winchester In repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Henry the Eighth's time § 137. In seizing on Religious Houses and some Bishops Lands and denying the lawfulness of Monastick Vows In defacing Images In enjoyning Administration of the Communion in both kinds § 142. In suppressing the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals § 143. In setting up new Forms Of celebrating the Communion § 144. Of Ordination § 145. Of common-Common-Prayer § 146. Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass § 147. Where 1. Concerning the alterations of the first common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward's in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist 148. 2. Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer-Book in relation to the same Sacrifice § 149. 3. Concerning the reduction of some things touching this matter in the new Common-Prayer-Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of King Edward § 150. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis § 151. And the celebration of the Eucharist prohibited when none other to communicate with the Priest § 152. And Invocation of Saints expunged out of the Litanies § 154. And the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession relaxed § 155. CHAP. X. In setting forth a second Form of common-Common-Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate § 157. In which second Book are rectified and removed many things which gave offence in the former § 158. Among the rest Prayer for the Dead and several expressions that seemed to inferr the Real or Corporal Presence in the Eucharist § 160. Where Concerning the reduction of some things touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to King Edward's first Form § 161. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis In the abrogation of several Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts Celibacy of the Clergy c Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion different from the former doctrines of the Church § 165. Where Whether these Articles were passed by any Synod CHAP. XI 3. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical matters § 170. All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and King Edward's days being reversed by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days Her calling of a Synod which declareth against the Reformation A Disputation between the Bishops and the Râ—â—â—â—med Divines § 177. The Regal Supremacy and all that King Edward had done in the Reformation now re-established by the Qu. and Parliament § 179. But not by the Clergy The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy § 180. The unlawfulness of this Ejection Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend § 181. How far not § 183. That Submission to the Regal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops § 184. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs how far it is to be acknowledged § 185. That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops § 186. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be lawfully ejected on any other ground as would render the Protestant Bishops a major part § 187. CHAP. XII Concerning the defects of the Queen's Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days § 190. n. 1. Concerning the defects of the new Bishops ordained in Qu. Elizabeth's days § 191. Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Canons § 193. Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination § 194. CHAP. XIII Digression concerning The Opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of Doctrine against the major part of the Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it 196. Opinion Of Dr. Field § 197. Of Mr. Mason § 199.
compulsion See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law saith she unless it be a late law of your own making for the altering matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the name of a Law both for c and for the partiality used in the same But I am well assured that the King his Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal c. Thus the Lady Mary An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my remembrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector Sec before §. â—04 That in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor he in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops I have here on purpose thrown together thus many testimonies to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations and to manifest the more how neither the Prelates except those new ones whom King Edward advanced nor the inferiour Clergy neither at first nor at last were so conforming to the Kings proceedings as is pretended out of the charge against Winchester That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received c. § 126 To θ. 1. To θ. First That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward we do not find that the major part of the Clergy in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth year of the Kings Reign is pretended to have consented to any of them save one namely the new Form of common-Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in the second year of the King and that consent was also had after this Book was first passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament as may be gathered 1. Both by the Act which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men which were in all fourteen whereof seven Bishops two of which were Cranmer and Ridley but not any concurrence or authority of a Synod See Heylin Sect 5.7 3â— But had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament this which was more would rather have been mentioned than the other which was less and which Act also by vertue of it self see before § 40. not of arty Synodical Act confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book 2. And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward which was authoritate Regis Parliamenti as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Which stile differs much from either of these A Rege Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus i. e that it might be established by the Church's authority or Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi Parliamento propositus i. e that being established by the Church it might be enjoyned also under temporal punishments by the State Laws Neither do the words following in that Article see them recited before § 110. Express any authoritative ratification but only a single testimony of their judgment concerning those Forms or say any thing which any other person void of authority may not use Now of this consent of the Convocations An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book a chief motive besides fear of punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments Injunctions or Laws was as I conceive this because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church as likewise the later common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book more omissions but no declaration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine of which I shall say more by and by And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have staid here See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable tho these omissions I excuse not as faultless or not offending against former Church-Canons But his Reformation proceeded much further to the condemning also of the Church's tenents and practice which cannot be shewed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government of which I shall speak hereafter But as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions from the paucity of the number of those who were imprisoned or ejected in comparison of the rest the argument is not good First Because many more might dissent and refuse obedience thereto then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it Might Nay did dissent for the Parliament beggeth their pardon see before § 120 and it is accounted a prudent policy of State where very many are guilty only to punish some of the chief for Example sake Secondly And again many more might be ejected or questioned for this than are by name mentioned in Fox or others and were so if you consider the testimonies before cited Thirdly But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected yet as where all the rest unanimously accord this restraint of a few changeth not the Church-affairs so when such a body is divided and all the rest are not of one mind this withdrawing of a few especially if these be the prime Leaders and the introducing of so many new voters who are of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting six new ones in their places may render that which was before a major and the more prevalent now a lesser and a weaker part and consequently if they be unjustly withdrawn will render the Act of this major part invalid § 127 Secondly 2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer c. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy inforcing as other Ecclesiastical Injunctions of the King so also the new Form of Communion before it was proposed to any Parliament or Convocation for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies that I may spare the taedium of repeating them But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-power had been removed from them touching which see their sad complaint before § 47 may be gathered 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Convocation the Six Articles and the the Necessary Doctrine 31. Hen. 8.14 c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days in the very beginning of which Arch-Bishop Cranmer called a Synod of them wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation but could not See
Antiquit-Brittan p. 339. And you see by the Testimonies forecited how many suffered for opposing the Kings Injunctions and particularly this new Form of common-Common-Prayer and how many more of the old Clergy are said to have opposed them in every place where they might hope for impunity insomuch as that this Book in many places was not so much as heard of and how a major part even of the Bishops are by Protestants confessed in their conformity only to have used an ontward compliance and dissimulation Lastly 3. From what they so many as remained of them did immediately after King Edward s time so soon as this Yoke of fear was removed in the entrance of Queen Mary at which time they threw-off their former vizards and plainly renounced not only the rest of the Reformation the fruit but also the Regal Supremacy i. e quoad talia the root Nor could fear when the Sovereign power rechanged ever make them taught by long experience to take up again their former disguise amongst whom the major part of those seven Bishops chosen to compose the new Common-Prayer-Book who survived to Queen Mary's days namely Day Thirlby and Goodrich Skyp Bishop of Hereford and Holbeck Bishop of Lincolne being dead before deserted this new Form and returned again to the Mass And it is probable that some of those Bishops who by Queen Mary were ejected for Marriage some of them even after a Monastick profession conformed themselves likewise to the old Religion because tho they lived here at home in so inquisitive and severe times we find not that they were restrained or proceeded against as Hereticks Such were Holgate Bird Bush c. § 128 Now since such were the inclinations of all or most of King Edward's first Clergy and to be swayed only from the profession thereof by fear no marvel if his Council went about reforming at the first by vertue of the new Supremacy before the calling of any Synod save that wherein Arch-Bishop Cranmer was frustrated of his intentions And Dr. Fern Exam. Champ. 2. c. § 8. makes this Apology for such proceeding That Reformation of Gods worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote where there is just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times wherein they are to assemble To which purpose saith he sounds that known complaint of Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councils spoken by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians in his time We cannot say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in a Synod especially where there is just cause of fear I suppose that he means Fear that the Synod will go contrary to what the Prince thinks to be right but he may have greater reason to ask advice from persons free from the exceptions of factious interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And saith he how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edward's Reign i. e till the King had otherwise moulded the Members of the Synod or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical Vote I cannot say Thus Dr. Fern. § 129 And much-what in the same manner doth Dr. Heylin Eccles Vindic. 2. Par. 5. § p. 82. discourse of King Edward's Reformation to shew you that our modern Writers are not without some apprehension of the neglect of the Church authority in it Which reviving saith he of the ancient Forms of Gods worship rather than the introduction of a new as the King Edward did here in England by his own authority the body of the Clergy not consulted in it so possibly there might be good reason why those who had the conduct of the Kings Affairs thought it not safe to put the managing of the business to a Convocation and then having shewed that such change of Religion would be both against the reputation and profit of the Clergy he goes on So that as well in point of reputation as of profit besides the love which many of them had to their former Mumpsimus it was most probable that such an hard piece of Reformation would not easily down had it been put into the power of a Convocation especially under a Prince in nonage and a State unsettled Thus he As for that which afterward he saith That this was passed by the Bishops when it passed in Parliament the Bishops making the most considerable van of the House of Peers It is answered by what hath been said before § 11. n. 2. And what he saith That all was confirmed by the Clergy on the Post-fact in the Convocation of 1552 sall be answered by and by See likewise what the same Dr. saith on the same subject in 1. Par. 6. § p. 36 where after doubting whether several particulars of King Edward's Reformation were done of the Kings meer motion or by advice of his Council or by Consultation With his Bishops For saith he there is little left upon record of the Convocation of that time more than the Articles of the year 1552 He speaks also of Queen Elizabeth's Reformation done after the same sort Thus also saith he in Queen Elizabeth's time before the new Bishops were well setled and the Queen assured of the affection of her Clergy she went that way to work in the Reformation which her two Predecessors Henry and Edward had done before her in the well ordering of the Church she published her Injunctions c. But when the times were better setled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation did make Canons c. And thus if a Prince according to the Sect which himself and his Council favours may take the liberty with coactive power to reform at the first against his Clergy he within a short time no doubt may securely leave the Church-work to Church-men as the Dr. saith and justify his Reformation by his Clergy that is either changed first or terrified § 130 To χ. To χ. These two I grant differ little 1 The Clergy's first motioning to the King 2. or The King 's first motioning to the Clergy a Reformation of something in Doctrine or Manners so that the Clergy uncompelled or forced by the King establish it before it be enjoyned or imposed on any to be observed But this following differs from the former toto coelo viz. When the King directed by some particular Bishops whom he thinks good to advise with proposeth to the Clergy a Reformation in Doctrine not to be consulted on by them and their judgment to be exhibited to him upon the assent or denyal of a major part of whom as having in these things the legislative power such Reformation may be established or laid aside but to be obeyed and
submitted-to by the Clergy as the King having the legislative power in these things by his Ecclesiastical Supremacy to be obeyed and submitted to by them upon penalties of suspension imprisonment deprivation c. and when upon this in the issue after some of the Clergy punished the rest do conform to the Kings commands Now which of these two were the proceedings of King Edward I refer the matter to the Story of those times and the testimonies above produced § 131 First And note here 1. That tho the whole Clergy should have submitted to such a Reformation yet cannot it be said to be their authentick Act at all or to be done but suffered by them as long as anothers command and force comes in especially where an after departure of a many of them shews us that their former compliance was feigned 2. That tho the submittance of the whole Clergy to such a Reformation had been ex animo and voluntary yet this rendereth not the former Imposition or Injunction of the King lawful or obligatory the lawfulness or unlawfulness of which cannot depend on an after casual event For I ask Suppose the Clergy generally had opposed them were these Injunctions justly imposed upon them by the King or not If not Then neither were they justly imposed tho the Clergy had consented because imposed before they consented whose consent is held necessary that they may be justly imposed But if justly imposed then why is the Clergy's consent or reception of such Injunctions at all urged here to justify them Suppose a Prince should first decide some Theological Controversy and then require submission thereto just on the same side affirmatively or negatively as a Synod of the Clergy would have done both these yet thus he taketh their office not rightly tho he manageth it not amiss And such Act will not be allowable because to the justifying of an action two things are requisite That the thing be right which is done That the person have lawful authority to do it § 132 3. That the King or State never sought for or pretended the Synods consent as authoritative to make the Kings or their Ecclesiastical Injunctions lawful or obligatory but required the duty of their obedience to these Acts of the Kings Supremacy which Supremacy was confirmed both by the Clergy's Recognition and Oath Which thing is sufficiently manifested in that many of the Kings Ecclesiastical Injunctions were set forth and did exact the Clergy's obedience to them before any Synods consent given or asked and when it was yet uncertain whether a major part would approve or condemn them But if you desire further evidence thereof I refer you to the matter delivered before In § 40 41. where you may see the Parliament Acts establishing such Laws without pretending or involving any Synodal authority nay giving authority by vertue of such Act to the Clergy to execute such Laws and In § 45 where you may see why it was necessary according to their principles that they should do so and In § 45 where you may see the obedience thought due in these matters to the regal Supremacy and the edicts issuing from it required to be subscribed by Winchester and In § 47 where you may see the description of the exauctorated State of the Clergy in those times and In § 103 where you may see the usual stile of Henry the Eighth whose Supremacy was no way remitted by his Son and In § 107. c. and § 113. the practice of Edward the Sixth which yet will be further declared in the following instances of his Supremacy W hen therefore the consent of Synod or Convocation is urged to the people or to some single person by the King or his Council it is not urged as an authority see the reason § 45. which these as subject to their decrees ought to obey but as an example which these as less knowing ought to follow But if the bare mentioning sometimes of the Clergy's consent argues this then thought necessary to the establishing of such decrees then would the mentioning of the consent of Parliament argue as much which is urged together with that of the Clergy and so no Ecclesiastical Acts of the King and Clergy would be obligatory unless confirmed by Parliament But this will destroy the authority of the 42 Articles made in the fifth year of King Edward ratified by no Parliament § 133 To λ To λ the Answer is prepared out of what hath been already said to θ. That before there had been any force used upon the Clergy a Reformation was endeavoured in a Synod by Arch-Bishop Cranmer but repelled That the vote of a Convocation after such violences first used after Clergy restrained or changed is not to be reckoned free That the major part only outwardly complyed for fear as is confessed by Protestants and seen both in their former decrees under King Henry and in their suddain recidivation I mean the Clergy not introduced by King Edward under Queen Mary That this consent of Convocation can only be urged for the Common-Prayer-Book but not for other parts of the Reformation which new Form of common-Common-Prayer omitted rather than gain-said the former Church-tenents and practice and these omissions not so many in the former Book of King Edward as in the latter That this consent of Convocation is not urged in the places cited as necessary to make the King and Parliaments Church-Constitutions valid but as exemplary to make others more conformable to them That the Bishops that framed this new Form of publick Service were but seven whereof those who survived till Queen Mary's time except Cranmer and Ridley returned to the Mass § 134 To μ. To μ. First Whether there was indeed any such Synodal Act as is here pretended in the times of King Edward shall be examined hereafter But Secondly Supposing for the present that there was so I answer besides that which is said in the Reply to λ and θ appliable to this That by this time the Clergy was much changed according to Mr. Fox's description made thereof before § 107 a many new Bishops introduced by King Edward several old ones displaced so that now after the State 's five years reforming Church-work to use Dr. Heylin's Phrase might more securely be committed to Church-men Yet that many also then for fear of the times either absented themselves from this Synod or in the Synod were guilty of much dissimulation as appears by their contrary votes soon after in the beginning of Queen Mary See before § 51. § 135 To ν. To ν. I answer That if such Synodal Acts were of the right Clergy and their Acts voluntary and unforced the Reformation here in England from the time of such Synods was as to this authority regular and canonical till reversed by the like authority But then this Reformation as it is supposed to be made by the Clergy is void upon another account viz. as being contrary to the former definitions
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-Common-Prayer Book in relation to the same Sacrifice Stat 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. But in the latter common-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
Us who has invited us to his House to a Volume of satisfactions that the Alienation of Church-Lands consists with the principles of that Church But 't is said King Edward went farther and declar'd Monastic Vows to be unlawful superstitious and unobliging The Reformers have always declar'd the same and must continue to do so till some reasons are brought to convince Us of the falshood of such a Declaration Those which are offer'd in the Discourse of Caelibacy are not demonstrative King Edward seiz'd upon Chauntries Free-Chappels c. his pretence being the Unlawfulness of offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist or giving alms for the defunct The unlawfulness of these is not pretended by the Reformation but prov'd The Chauntries were dissolv'd that the provisions for them might be converted to more pious Uses this was the design of the Act of Parliament for which only We can be thought oblig'd to answer how ever it might be defeated For the statute expressly provides that they be converted to good and Godly Uses as in erecting Grammar-Schools for the Education of Youth in Virtue and Godliness the farther augmenting of the Universities and better provision for the poor and needy § 139 In this he went beyond his Father that He began the taking of Bishop's Lands also This must be reckon'd an Act of the Reformation tho' he knows it is as pathetically lamented by our Writers as by his own He cites the complaints of three Protestant Bishops Cranmer Ridley and Godwin and a Protestant Dr. Heylin to prove this charge and yet at the same time has the boldness to charge it on the Reform'd Sure saith he foul things were done in this kind because I find even King Edward's favourite Bishops highly to dislike them If Cranmer and Ridley and other King Edward's favourite-Bishops disliked the spoyl of the Church-goods why is the Odium of this cast upon the Reformers Or why must very foul things be done before these declare their dislike when it will be found upon History that Cranmer and Ridley were more inveterate Enemies to robbing of the Church then Gardiner and Bonner He shuts up this Paragraph with a remark that Laymenders of Religion ordinarily terminate in these two things the advancing of their carnal Liberty and temporal Estates Sure this Author thinks that We know nothing beyond the Alps that we never heard of the rich Nephews of Popes which are flagrant evidences that Carnality and Avarice are not only Lay-vices But perhaps he may object that Popes are no menders of Religion § 140 By Virtue of such Supremacy he remov'd Images out of Churches and this when the Second Nicene Council had recommended the Use of them This Second Nicene Council is often appeal'd to by this Writer there is a Second Divine Commandment or at least there once was such a Commandment which will deserve his Consideration What Reverence we pay to this Council he may have learnt from a late a Reply to the 2 Disc Oxon. Reply where the Reader will find a just Character of this celebrated Assembly § 141 By Virtue of such Supremacy he impos'd a Book of Homilies i. e. He took care that the people should be instructed in things concerning their Salvation who before had been kept in ignorance § 142 He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion in both kinds to the people Which Command had been laid upon them by our Savior Contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance Which Injunction was made with a non-obstante to the Institution of Christ Without any preceding consultation of a National Synod But b Bur. V. 2. p. 50. others tell us it was agreed to by the Convocation which sat with that Parliament and particularly that in the lower House it did not meet with a Contradictory Vote § 143 The succeeding Paragraphs to the 164th treat at large of the Suppression of the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals the setting up of New Forms of Celebrating the Communion Ordination and common-Common-prayer the alterations of King Edward's first common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book in his Second and the reduction of some things in the Scotch Liturgy to the first Form of King Edward and the complaints concerning this in Laudensium Autocatacrisis But the Reader will excuse me if I think a defence of our Liturgy at this time of day needless the unlawfulness of the Mass and Invocation of Saints and the non-Necessity of Sacerdotal Confession have been defended in Volumes besides that this which is here said is only a Second Edition of the two Discourses concerning the Adoration c. Where this change of the Services is animadverted on So that this has been already consider'd and any farther Reply is superseded by the two Learned Answers from London and Oxford to those Discourses § 146 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King conceiv'd he had a power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws This is the 4th time that this Reformation of the Laws has been insisted on it is here confest that this Rerformation of them was never ratified by King Parliament or Convocation i. e. that it was no Act of the Reformation Nothing is urg'd against it but that these Laws were establish'd by former Superior Councils and the Reader e're he can be satisfied of that must be at the charge of four more Volumes of Church-Government By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-Laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliament's Autority The Canon-Laws which he call's the Church-Laws for fasting were full of mockery and superstition Religion was plac'd in those Observances and yet Sensuality was consistent with them It was adviseable therefore to take off those Laws and yet to keep up such as might make Fasting and Abstinence agreeable to their true End Which is to be a means to Virtue and to subdue men's Bodies to their Soul and Spirit the End expressly provided for in the Statute There is no Obligation he saith for the Observation of either Fasting or Abstinence by any express Canon of this Church Reformed but only by Act of Parliament The days of Fasting are prescrib'd in the Liturgy which has the Autority of Convocation Fasting is enjoyn'd in the Homilies which have the same Autority It is there recommended from precepts of Scripture from the Example of Christ and from the Constitutions of the Primitive Councils It is defin'd to be a with-holding from all meat and drink and all manner of Natural food in contradiction to this Author who saith that not Fasting is enjoyn'd us but only Abstinence from Flesh He might with as good reason have urg'd that Praying to God and believing in Christ are not enjoyn'd by the Church as that Fasting is not For if by Canons he means those which are properly so call'd neither is there any Canon that I know of which enjoyns such Prayer or such Belief § 165 By Virtue of such Supremacy
and form save that he shall bless and consecrate the biggest Chalice or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of Wine with some water put unto it and that day not drink it up all himself but taking one only sup or draught leave the rest upon the Altar covered and thus exhort the people Dearly beloved c. Thus the Rubrick And this Form as Mr. Fox goes on exhabited unto the King was by his Majesty's Council particularly sent to every Bishop of the Realm requiring and commanding them by their Letters on the Kings Majesty's behalf that they should forthwith have diligent respect to the due execution thereof c. In which Letter the motive urged by the Council why this new Form was drawn up and imposed is That the Statute of the former Parliament ordering that the Sacrament should be distributed unto the people in both kinds might be well executed in such sort as is agreeable with the word of God as if for the distribution of the Sacrament in both kinds there was any need of altering or superadding any thing to the Mass when as with that same Form of the Mass it was in the publick Communions for many Centuries only so distributed and when as that same Form of the Mass is urged by Protestants as contrary to communicating the people only in one kind but the true cause of altering it I shall shew you by and by Now this new Form was thus imposed by the King and his Council before allowed by any Synod of the Clergy or Act of Parliament which were procured afterward in the second Parliament of King Edward Meanwhile such alterations in King Edward's time about the Doctrine and the Administration of this Sacrament as they were uncanonical so they were in this respect also very hurtful in that they occasioned in the ignorant especially much profaneness and irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament in those days as you may partly also gather from an Act 1. Edw. 6.1 c. made against such irreverent speaking against it For whereas the Sacrament was according to ancient custome delivered to each Communicant in a small round Wafer hence they gave it the name of Round-Robin And because the parts thereof that were reserved to be carried to the sick were hanged up over the Altar in a Pix or Box they named it Jack in a Box and instead of the Sacrament of the Altar called it the Sacrament of the Halter See Heylin's Hist of Reform 49.63 Such profaneness followed the remedy of what they called Superstition § 145 Secondly 2. Of Ordination See 3 4. Edw. 6.10 c. Having likewise condemned amongst other superstitious Books the former Church-form of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops and Priests the King caused a new Form to be prescribed upon this pretence in the Act of Parliament That so concord and unity might be had within his Majesty's dominions in these Ordinations But could not this have been done without innovation by strictly confining all to the use of the former Church form or if these were various to some one of them Stat. 3 4. Edw. 6.12 c. Now for the compiling of this new Form the Parliament orders That such as by fix Prelates See before §. 42. and six others to be appointed by the King or by the major part of them should be devised for that purpose and set forth under the great Seal should by vertue of their Act without obtaining or requiring any ratification thereof from any Synod be lawfully used and none other any law or prescription to the contrary thereof notwithstanding In which new Form amongst other things which were in the former now cast out this is one to the great contradiction of all Antiquity The Bishops conferring on the ordained Presbyters potestatem offerendi sacrificium propriè dictum verè propitiatorium see in what sense understood and explained by the Church in Discourse of the Eucharist § 251. c Deo Missasque celcbrandi tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis Quod omnem superat impietatem saith Mason de Minist p. 242. 17. c. And this is another The Oath of Submission of the Ordained or Consecrated to the Supremacy of the Patriarch instead of which is prescribed another Oath to the Supremacy of the Temporal Prince From which Regal Supremacy also we find Cranmer after fifteen years governing the Province of Canterbury receiving at the coming in of a new Sovereign a new Licence of ordaining Bishops and Priests therein durante Beneplacito Regis The Form as Sanders p. 170. hath set it down runs thus Quandoquidem omnis jurisdicendi authoritas atque etiam jurisdictio omnimoda tam illa quae ecclesiastica dicitur quam seecularis a Regia petestate velut a supremo capite manta c. Ad ordinandum igitur quoscunque intra Diaecesim tuam Cantuariensem ad omnes etiam sacros Presbyteratus ordines promovendum per praesentes ad nostrum beneplacitum duraturos tibi damus potestatem And some such thing is intimated by Mr. Prin unbishoping of Timothy p. 80. I must inform our Bishops saith he for their Learning that all the Bishops in King Edward the Sixth's time had special clauses in their Letters Patents authorizing them to ordain Ministers and Deacons as Bishop Poynet's Scory's Coverdale's Patents 5. Edw. 6. pars 1. testify at large and there is no wonder in this if you recall to mind Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Answers to the Queries made concerning these matters recited before § 105. n. 3. Which Patents if they imply such a Supremacy Ecclesiastical in the Prince as that he may if he please prohibit any Ecclesiastical person at all from ordaining Ministers in his dominions are contrary to the first Thesis above § 2. But yet this new Ordinal was not so well purified from former Superstitions See in Fox p. 1366. the Kings and Earl of War wick's Letters but that some who were presented to Bishopricks were stumbled therewith and the Kings dispensation was obtained in order to the consecrating of Bishop Hooper for his not observing of some things therein and particularly for his not taking the new Oath either that of obedience to the Arch-Bishop or that of the Kings Supremacy which perhaps he lately seasoned abroad with Calvin's Doctrine See before §. 37 could not so easily digest § 146 Thirdly 3◠of Common Prayer Not long after the production of the new Form in administring the Communion in the second year of his Reign he caused it to be reviewed and also then to be drawn up a new Form of Common Prayer for Mattins and Evensong and the Administration of the other Sacraments of the Church if I may use the phrase of the Act 2. Edw. 6.1 c. which Form composed by seven Bishops and seven other learned men of the Clergy chosen by the King yet one of them Day Bishop of Chicester after it was done refused to subscribe it who was afterward also turned out of his
Bishoprick See Heylin's Hist of Reform p. 65. quoting the Register of Petworth was authorized by Act of Parliament and at the same time consented to as it seems by what is urged above § 110 by a Convocation of the Clergy of which see what is said §. 126 And the pretence of making this new Form in the Preface of that Act is this That whereas of long time there had been in the Realm divers Forms of Common Prayer the use of Sarum of York of Bangor and Lincolne and besides the same now of late much more divers and sundry Forms and Fashions have been used c to stay Innovation and Rites concerning the Premises his Highness being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his subjects in that behalf hath appointed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury c. having as well respect to the most pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture as to the usages in the Primitive Church to draw and make one convenient and meet order rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and Administration to be had and used in his Majesty's Realms Thus the Act. But to remedy these innovations or diversities of Forms how easy had it been to establish any one of the ancient Forms Or at least reasonable to retain in the new draught those things wherein all the former Church-Services agreed And not themselves to innovate for the hindering of innovations But the fact discovers the intention § 147 Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass For in this new draught was ejected and left out the Sacrifice of the Mass or the oblation to God of the Holy Eucharist as propitiatory or impetratory of any benefits to the living or to the dead contrary to the belife of former Church and Councils as is mentioned before § 118. And for this reason were the Altars in Churches commanded to be changed into Tables that the eating might be thought on but not the offering Whenas Hooper had preached before the King That so long as Altars remained both the ignorant people and the ignorant and evil-perswaded Priest would always dream of Sacrifice and besides the great men about the Court saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 95. had promised themselves no small hopes of profit by the dis-furnishing these Altars of the Hangings Palls Plate and other rich Utensils The leaving of one Chalice to every Church with a Cloth or covering for the Communion-Table being thought sufficient Upon the same excuse were the Chaunteries Free-Chappels c. seized on as chiefly erected for the relieving of the deceased with the offering of this Sacrifice and the Alms and Prayers accompanying it of which see before § 138. The benefit of which Sacrifice for the dead was yet a thing the more maintainable in those days because the new Form still retained this manner of praying for the dead Grant unto this thy Servant that the sins which he committed in this world be not imputed unto him but that he escaping the gates of Hell and pains of eternal darkness may ever dwell in the region of light with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the place where is no weeping sorrow nor heaviness c. See the Order for Burial Fol. 28. § 148 For the exclusion of this Sacrifice Where 1. Concerning the alterations in the first Common-Prayer Book if K. Edward's in relation to the Sac ifice of the Eucharist you may find in the new Communion see Communion Fol. 128. all those expressions in the former Liturgy that signify it diligently cancelled forbidding also the elevation of the Host after Consecration as these following In the Canon before Communicating Te supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata inprimis quae Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesiâ tuâ sanctâ Catholicâ c. And Memento Domine famulorum c pro quibus tibi offcrimus hoc sacrificium laudis pro redemptione animarum suarum pro spe salutis incolumitatis suae c. And Memores ejusdem Christi filii tui tam beatae passionis c. offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis Hostiam puram Hostiam sanctam Hostiam inmaculatam panem sanctum vit◠aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostril Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Jube haec perferri per manus Sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Divinae Majestatis tuae ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur And that in Post-Communion Praesta ut sacrificium quod oculie tuae Majestatis indignus obtuli Tibi sit acceptabile omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli sit te miserante propitianile These Expressions I say are cancelled and instead of these the new Form makes an oblation to God not of the consecrated Gifts or Sacrament at least expresly but of our thanks and of our own persons and service But this Oblation in imitation of the former it brings in immediately after the Consecration and before Communicating whilst the conescrated Elements yet remain upon the Table This new Form I thought good to transcribe because perhaps you may not have the Book Wherefore O Lord and heavenly Father according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son we do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy Gifts the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make having in remembrance his blessed Passion c. where whether some of the Composers who were of different perswasions see before §. 127 128. retaining the former intentions under an only-varied expression might not extend these ambiguous words to an offering of the holy misteries to God the Father as a commemorative Sacrifice of that of his Son upon the Cross I cannot say but thus it goes on Rendring unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same Entirely desiring thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thansgiving Most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ We and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his Passion And here we offer and present unto thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice unto Thee humbly beseeching thee that whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction the ancienter Form Ut quotquot
at Windsor much more temperate and less varying from the former Service than the present is as ordinarily things do not on a suddain move from one extreme to another In which Book also it is to be noted that many of the alterations which were made were only omissions As of the Sacrifice of the Mass of Invocation of Saints of Auricular Confession of Elevation of the Eucharist Adoration being not-prohabited c. without tying any to professing his faith to be contrary to such things as were omitted which I impute to the wariness and moderation of some of the Composers who retained a different perswasion from the rest See before § 127. And again that in it were many former usages of the Church still retained which gave great offence to the forreign Reformers and to other Precisians here who had been nursed abroad under their Discipline Amongst which usages retained may be numbred these At the Communion in the Prayer for the estate of the Church Catholick a solemn Commemoration of the Saints and other faithful departed Fol. 128. which was thought fit by the late Composers of the Scotch Liturgy to be restored again in part into the same Prayer where is made a distinct and different Commemoration of other faithful deceased and of the Saints deceased Prayer for the dead and that in the same manner as formerly See Burial of the dead Fol 28. as supposing some of them in a state purgative or betterable by such Prayers See before § 147. Exorcisme I command thee unclean Spirit that thou depart c. Fol. 2. and anction of Infants in Baptisme Fol. 4. Sanctifying or Benediction of the Water in the Font before it be used in Baptisme Fol. 8. resumed by the Scotch Liturgy Extrcam Vnction also still retained Consecrating only so much Bread and Wine as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion And mingling Water with the Wine Fol. 126. Reservation of the Sacrament after publick Communion to be carried home to the sick if there be any that day to be communicated which reservation were it made for some longer time I see not how this difference can alter the lawfulness thereof Visit Sick fol. 22. The quotidian Celebration of the Eucharist in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churrches as yet practiced tho not enjoined Fol. 21. See Ruhr Fol. 123. The Altars still left in the same Position and with the same furniture as formerly The Communion-bread made in the same Figure as formerly only to be somewhat thicker and without any print upon them The same Holy Vestments Albes Copes still retained The Oblation made after Consecration before receiving spoken of before And chiefly the retaining still in the Consecration and other passages of the Communion all those former expressions of the Mass which imply whether by Trans or Con-substantiation a corporal presence For such presence was not a thing declared against till the Fifth year of King Edw. in Art 28. and then declared against upon this Philosophical reason because ejusdem hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non potest But this part against real or corporal Presence with its reason was afterward thought fit to be cast out of this Article when they were reviewed by Queen Elizabeth 's Synod 1562. The Obligation of Henry the Eighth's Six Articles being voided all persons in this point were then left as it were to their own opinion amongst whom as some were Zuinglians so a major part seem to have been in the former days of King Edward either of the Roman or Lutheran perswasion Neither is there any mention concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist in the Articles proposed to Winchester or in any other of the Kings Injunctions and therefore Bonner and Gardiner when forced to preach in publick to the great offence of some of their Auditors made this the chief subject of their Sermons and many in the publick Disputations had in Oxford and Cambridge about this matter freely and ex animo maintained such corporal Presence See before § 107. And Cranmer himself also for a long time was a Lutheran in his opinion till at last he was otherwise perswaded by Ridley Fox p. 1115. and p. 1703. Neither was there such agreement between Ridley and Peter Martyr at first but that the one in the Oxford Disputations held a change after Consecration in the substance of the Bread and Wine which the other denyed in Cambridge Fox p. 1255. § 158 Thus stood things somewhat moderated in the first Form In which second Book are rectified and removed many thing which gave offence in the former against which therefore were made many complaints Calvin writ to the Protector soon after it was set forth where he incites him to a new Reformation thereof and after having found fault with Prayer for the Dead he goes on Sunt alia non perinde damnanda fortasse sed tamen ejusmodi ut excusari non possint Illa omnia abscindi semel praestiterit ut nihil in Ecclesiâ Dei usurpetur quod non ipsius verbo conforme sit ad Ecclesiae aedificationem pertineat ita verò tolerandi sunt infirmi ut ad meliora promoveantur After this about 1551. Epistle p. 135. he writ thus to Arch-Bishop Cranmer Sic correctae sunt externae superstitiones ut residui maneant innumeri surculi qui assiduè pullulent Imò ex corruptelis Papatus audio relictam esse congeriem quae non obscuret modò sed propemodum obruat purum genuinum Dei cultum Writ likewise to Bucer then a Teacher of the reformed Religion in Cambridge that he should solicite this matter telling him that he was censured for too much moderation and might thus free himself from such an aspersion Epistle p. 107. Dominum Protectorem ut volebas conatus sum hortari ut stagitabat praesens rerum status tuum quoque erit modis omnibus instare praesertim verbo ut ritus qui superstitionis aliquid redolent tollant ur e medio Hoc tibi nominatim commendo 〈◊〉 te invidiâ liberes quâ te falso gravar◠apud multos non ignoras nam modiis consiliis te vel authorem vel approbatorem semper inscribunt Scio hanc quorundam animis suspicionem altius infixam asse quam ut eam revellere facile sit eciamfi nihil omittas Bucer thus excited by Calvin and also requested by Cranmer having the Book translated in to Latine An. 1551. writes a censure thereof wherein he desireth the alteration or omission of many things even to the disallowing of the use of the Surplice and of such other vestments as are there appointed of saying of the second Service at the Altar of the Presbyter's taking the bread in his hand and the using of the sign of the Cross in the Consecration besides greater matters of praying for the dead c. Yet of several of those things which he would have to
be changed he confessed both that they were ancient and might in some manner be inculpably used but yet thought it better that they should be removed 1. because not appointed in Scripture by word or example 2. because they might be or also had been abused'to superstition 3. because the Church should partake as little as might be of the same usages with Anti-Christ Bucer Censur in Ordinat Eccles Angl. p. 458. 467. c. § 179 Upon such exceptions taken at the Liturgy as well from abroad as also by some of the preciser sort at home saith Dr. Heylin Reform Justif p. 31. and Hist of Reform p. 107. and because there had risen divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the said Service rather by the curiosity of the Minister and mistakers than of any other worthy cause saith the Act of Parliament it self 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. which shews what a good opinion they had of the former Book It was committed to be new corrected but by what persons we know not The Act without any such Encomium of these Reviewers as of the first Composers faith only That the King caused it to be faithfully and godly perused explained and made fully perfect Perhaps it was corrected which is one of Dr. Heylin's conjectures See before § 42. by those who were appointed by the King about this time to compose a Form of Ordination which Form the Act joined with this new service-Service-Book But it could not be done by the same persons that composed the former at least not by all of them because Day before this was ejected out of his Bishoprick and two more Shyp and Holbeck as I think before this deceased and Harley and Taylor were chosen their Successors The thing matters not much-Thus corrected it was presented to the Parliament and it only by them authorized to be used § 160 Which second Form besides casting out several other things that were retained in the former Among the rest Prayer for the dead and several expressions that seemed to â—â—ser the Reaâ—or Corporal Preseace in the Eucharist as the Commemoration of Saints and Prayer for the dead many Rites in the Administration of Baptisme the liberty of extream Vnction the Oblation and Prayers in the Communion which were made immediately after Consecration spoken-of before § 148 149. above all seems to have taken a vigilant special care for the altering and removing out of the former Form all those passages Which might argue any real or corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ whether it be by Trans or Con-substantiation or any other way with the Symbols Whereas therefore in the Prayer of Consecration these words are in the Missal Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini Nostri Jesu Christi and so in the first Form of King Edward these words Hear us O Merciful Father we beseech the and with Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bl ✚ ess and sanc ✚ tify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread md Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Both the Missal and that Form ordering the person consecrating at this time to take both the Bread and the Cup into his hands Instead of this the second Form is thus changed Hear us O Merciful Father we beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood omitting also the Priests touching or handling the Pattin or Chalice which is done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. Whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols of which also Bucer saith p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quicquam his elementis adesse Christi extra usum praebitionis receptionis For the same reason it seems to be that the Glory be to God on high c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum Corda the one is transferred after the Communion and the other omitted Likewise whereas in the administring of these Mysteries the Missal useth this Form Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aternam and so also the first Book of King Edward the Second as it were against the apprehending of any Real Presence to the Symbols or any oral feeding on that Body removeth those words and placeth instead thereof only these Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thankgiving Again Drink this in remembrance c So whereas it is said in the first Form in the Player of humble access Grant us so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries the second omits in these holy Mysteries Likewise at the end of the Communion-Service is added this Rubrick declaring that kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament is required for a signification of the humble acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy receiver and not for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or in regard of any real or essential Presence of Christ's natural Body and Blood Whereas it s ordained in the Administration of the Lord's Supper that the Communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion which thing is well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver and to avoid the profanation and disorders which about the Holy Communion might else ensue Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any Adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received or unto any real and essential Presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood For as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine they remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry And as concerning the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ they are in heaven and not here for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural Body to be in moe places than one at one time Thus that Rubrick thought fit to be omitted in the Common-Prayer-Book of Queen Elizabeth of which see the Reason below § 179. n. 2. Accordingly the Altar was changed into a Table the sides whereof were set North and South set near the Reading-place ordered at the Communion time to be covered with a fair white Linnen Cloth the other vestments prohibited save only a Surplice for a Priest and Rochet for a
before § 65. and caused Arch-Bishop Whitgift to exact of all those that entred into the Clergy a Subscription that they would use it and no other Form Cambd Eliz. An. Dom. 1583. Ecclesiastical Can. 36. Which Subscription the party that opposed this Book at last prevailing was remitted by the Parliament 1640 and since that I need not tell you what it hath suffered The old Form supplanted the Mass the pew Form the old and then the old one being raised again out of its ashes in the new Scotch Liturgy which began all the troubles had almost brought in the late tumults a fatal overthrow both upon the new one and upon it self Thus much from § 143. concerning this Kings new Liturgies § 164 By vertue of such a Supremacy the King conceiving he had power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws In the abrogatio of several Ecclesiastical law coâ—â—eâ—ning Fastâ— Câ—lâ—bacy of the Cleâ—gy c. tho established by former superior Councils appointed the Parliament assenting thereto eight persons amongst whom were two Bishops Crannier and Thirlby and Peter Martyr to prepare this work Who drew up a body of them which was then made publick and since reprinted 1640. But indeed it appeareth not that this Reformation of them was ever ratified by King Parliament or Convocation See the Preface to Reform Leg. Eccl. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliaments authority and dispensed with whom he thought fit for not observing them See Stat. 2 3. Edw. 19. chap. Wherein after a Preface declaring That the Kings Subjects now had a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel and true word of God shewed declared and opened thro the mercy of God by the hands of the Kings Majesty and his most noble Father and thereby perceived that one day or meat of it self is not more holy more pure or more clean than another c. as if the former Church which they left had taught them otherwise after this Preface I say the King with the consent of Parliament first ordains That all manner of Statutes Laws and Constitutions concerning any manner of fasting or abstinence from any kinds of meats shall from the first of May next ensuing loose their force and strength and be void and of none effect Then sets down the days upon which he will have abstinence from flesh observed upon the Penalty of paying Ten Shillings and suffering ten days Imprisonment except those who being not enfeebled with age or sickness shall receive a licence to eat flesh from the King or his Successors For you must know that the maker of a Law hath power to dispense with it But here note that only abstinence from flesh is enjoyned on those days by this Statute not Fasting nor is Fasting enjoyned by any other Statute that I can find save only on Holy-day-Eves by a Statute made two or three years after Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.3 â— Neither is there any obligation for the observation of either fasting or abstinence on these days by any express Canon of this Church reformed when as now the former Church-Laws concerning this were by the Kings Supremacy nulled in this Act but only by Act of Parliament and the end of such abstinence in the Parliament Act 5. Eliz. 5. c. professed to be only upon a Politick consideration the increase of Fishermen and Mariners c. And not for any Superstition saith that Act to be maintained in the choice of meats or as if such forbearing of flesh were of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be Tho King Edward in the fore-cited Statute I confess mentions partly another end viz. because that due and godly abstinence is a means to vertue and to subdue mens bodies to their Soul and Spirit And I doubt not that many devout persons in this Church holding themselves bounden to the former Ecclesiastical Constitutions notwithstanding the Kings abrogation have still observed this duty in obedience thereto See likewise 5 6. Edw. 6. 3. c. the same Regal authority appointing the Holy-days And these things are done in Parliament without the least mentioning or referring to any Synod § 165 Likewise by vertue of such Supremacy the King with consent of Parliament ordained Staâ— 2 3. Edw 6.21 c. That all Laws positive Canons Constitutions heretofore made by man only which prohibit Marriage to any Spiritual Person who by Gods Law may lawfully marry shall be utterly void and of none effect and this upon consideration as it is in the Preface of the same Act of such uncleanness of living and other great inconveniences which have followed of compelled chastity as if the Church compelled any person to such chastity except hypothetically if he will take on him such a profession Or as if in this the Church enjoyned any thing which she first stated not to be in every ones power to observe if using a just endeavour Now whereas it is said in 5.6 Edw. 6.12 That the slanderous reproach of holy Matrimony i. e. of Priests doth redound to the dishonour of the Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same Marriage of Clergy to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by their common assent as by the subscription of their hands Such assent as likewise that which they say to the same purpose in the 42 Articles Art 31. no way opposeth the Law of the Church For things most lawful by Gods Law as Marriage of the Clergy is by the Church allowed to be yet may be lawfully prohibited by the Church Whose Law in this matter the Clergy of this land justified in the third and fourth of the Six Articles Neither if they had here opposed it as they do not would their sentence be of any force because contrary to the Constitution of former superiour Councils § 166 By vertue of such Supremacy the King in the Sixth year of his Reign published by his authority 42 Articles of Religion containing several matters of Faith Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion dâ—fferent from the foâ—mer dectâ—â—â—eâ— of the Church which are there stated contrary to the definitions of former superiour Councils Which Articles are said indeed to have been first decreed and agreed on by a Synod of the Clergy held at London the Title presixed to them being this Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. Dom. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat regiâ authoritate in lucem editi But this I cannot thus easily concede Where whether these Articles were passed by any Synod notwithstanding this Title Thus far indeed I grant that they seem to be compiled or consented to by some members of
onely from his Presbytership See Fox p. 1604. and not his Episcopacy For saith he We do not acknowledge you for a Bishop Which had he understood quoad Excercitium and not also quoad Characterem then neither so ought he to have acknowledged him for or degraded him as a Presbyter he being quoad excercitium no more the one then the other Now the reason why he acknowledged him no Bishop quoad Characterem was I conceive upon supposition that Ridley was not ordained by the old Form because much offence being taken at that old Form we may conjecture by the reason given in the Preface of the Statute recited before § 42. that also before the new set-form established there were in Ordinations some varyings from the old The same you may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old Form Bishop by the new and therefore degraded in Queen Mary's days only as a Priest Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new Form and therefore in his condemnation not degraded at all but treated as a meer Laick In these days likewise Bishop Bonner writ a Book call'd A profitable and necessary Doctrine c. wherein he contendeth See F. a S. Clara Eâ—chirid p. 93. that the new devised Ordination of Ministers was unsufficient and void because no authority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ but both the Ordainer and Ordained despised and impugned not onely the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass but also the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar Lastly 't is probable that Mason and others Art of Edw. 6.28 Art to whom this dispensation could not be unknown and was so serviceable for this Controversy would not have left it unmentioned could they have made any such construction thereof as Bishop Bramhal doth 2. In general those who are truly ordained yet if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church their true Orders as to the exercise of them are unlawful and so unless a Church be first cleared from Heresy and Schisme these Orders are not rightly employed in it And those also who receive the Sacraments from their Ministery do tho truly yet fruitlesly receive them I mean so many as by their obstinacy or ignorance culpable are guilty of the same Heresy or Schisme because these do not receive with the Sacrament gratiam sanctificationis or charitatem or jus ad regnum caelorum thro such their sin without which Charity any other fruition of the Sacrament is nothing worth Of which thus St. Austine De Baptis 7. l. 52. c. against the Donatists concerning their Priests giving and others receiving the Sacrament of Baptisme from them Habent potestatem dandi baptismum quamquam inutiliter habeant accipitur ab eis etiam cum inutile est accipientibus quod ut fiat utile ab haeresi vel schismate recedendum est 54. c. Infructuose atque inutiliter tradunt baptismum tales talibus in eo quod regnum Dei non possidebunt Haereticis correctis baptisma non incipit adesse quod deerat sed prodesse quod inerat And thus the Schools Haereticus i. e. manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisus excommunicatus c. non amittit potestatem conferendi Sacramentum sed licentiam utendi hâc potestate ideo quidem confert sed tamen peccat conferendo similiter ille qui ab eo accipit Sacramentum sic non percipit rem Sacramenti i e. gratiam sanctificationis nisi forte per ignorantiam excusetur Si sunt manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisi ex hoc ipso quod aliquis accipit Sacramenta ab eis peccat per hoc impeditur ne effectum Sacramenti consequatur Thus Aquinas p. 3.64 q 9.a. And then what great difference in the giver of such Sacraments not to have true Orders and not to have the power to use them Or in the receiver of the Sacraments not to have true Sacracraments and not to be benefited by them Excepting only such who living in such a separate Society are by their invincible ignorance excused from fault to whom it is granted that such Sacraments are effectual When they return to the unity of the Church indeed then his true Orders formerly received become to the one usable and the true Sacraments formerly received to the other profitable But this is in effect all one as if then the one first de novo received Orders § 193 3. and the other the Sacraments Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Câ—â—â—â— 3. But again tho I do not here state the question Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops Yet their Introduction and Ordination if valid seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful Because they came many of them into the places of others unjustly expelled 2. Because neither the major part nor any save one of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination See Thes 3. §. 6.7 which consent is a thing most necessary for preservation of the Church both in true Doctrine and in Unity Of which you have heard but now Mr. Thorndike's Testimony Who in the same place applying his Doctrine to this very fact goeth on thus Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that rule wherein the unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reformation had been supported in that power which by the premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass 3. Because to prevent all division and faction as likewise to
the Primers the sentences of Invocation or Prayer to Saints be blotted and clearly put out of the same And this contrary to the former universal practice of the Catholick Church See Chur. Govern 4. Par. 98. § § 155 Aâ—d the necessity of Sacerdotal Coâ—fession relaxed Besides this in the same new Form is remitted the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession and the performing of such penitence and humiliation as the Priest shall judge meet and the receiving of his absolution and reconciliation for those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sins or grievous crimes before they may presume to approach to Gods Altar and to the holy Communion of Christs body and blood contrary to the former decrees of superior Councils and practice of the Church Catholick Instead whereof it is only here ordered That if any be an open and notorious evil liver so that the Congregation by him is offended or have done any wrong to his Neighbors the Curate shall not admit him to the Communion before his giving satisfaction of his repentance to the Congregation and at least declaring his full purpose to recompence the party wronged And before the Communion Fol. 123. a general exhortation made That if any be a blasphemer adulterer or be in malice or envy or any other grievous crime he should not come to that holy Table except he be truly sorry therefore and earnestly-minded to leave the same vices and do trust himself to be reconciled to Almighty God and in charity with all the world This is said indeed in the second Exhortation Fol. 124. If there be any whose Conscience is troubled or grieved in any thing lacking comfort or counsel let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned Priest taught in the Law of God and confess and open his sin and grief secretly that he may receive such ghostly counsel advice and comfort that his conscience may be relieved and that of us as of the Ministers of God and of the Church he may receive comfort and absolution to the satisfaction of his mind and avoiding of all scruple and doubtsulness But the words following viz. Requiring such as shall be satisfied with a general Confession not to be offended with them that do use to their further satisfying the auricular and secret Confession to the Priest nor those also which think needful or convenient for the quietness of their consciences particularly to open their sins to the Priest to be offended with them that are satisfied with their humble confession to God and the general confession to the Church I say these words which are omitted in the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book I suppose as speaking too favourably of the use of Auricular Confession do argue that thenceforth no necessity of Sacerdotal Confession was imposed upon any for any crime Likewise in the Visitation of the Sick it is said Here shall the sick person make a special confession if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter which is also retained in the second Form of Common-Prayer But here such Confession is commanded only hypothetically not if he have committed but if his Conscience be troubled with any weighty matter which he hath committed Which unfortunate If as experience hath shewed quickly ruined the practice of Sacerdotal Confession § 156 And indeed with your leave to digress a little when grievous sins are committed this If might well have been spared For 1. every one that hath committed such sin as is supposed to have put him out of the State of Grace and out of his Baptismal Regeneration for which only the Church requires Sacerdotal Confession either hath or ought to have and probably would have if the Clergy taught him so his Conscience troubled till he hath obtained a new reconciliation to God by those whom God hath appointed to do this office for him 2. But if his private repentance when this is done proportionably to his offence is sufficient for his reconciliation yet what grievous sinner after much repentance ought not still to be troubled concerning the unworthines of it till he hath consulted in such an hazard his spiritual Father much more knowing therein than himself And then if all such ought to be troubled all ought to confess Indeed le ts trouble of mind is many times a sign of less penitence and of such high offenders those have most need of the Priest's cure who are least troubled And those who are least troubled ought to be so much the more troubled that they are so little troubled and ought to go to the Priest and confess such sin that he may excite them to greater trouble and sorrow for it and may put them to some pain in searching their wound to the bottome that so it may be more capable of cure And on the other side those who in and after long penitence and even from all their life are much troubled for such their crimes are likely to be the best penitents and consequently to have least need of Sacerdotal Confession for the examining of their repentance which examination and not consolation I imagine is the chief end and design of the Reformed's prescribing such Confession to those who are troubled 3. But then add to this that when once such Sacerdotal Confession for great sinners is commanded by the Church i. e. by a lawful superior Council to be observed as necessary jure divino or by divine Institution Now it comes to pass that tho such Confession were supposed not necessary to be observed or practised from any such divine institution yet after decreed by such a Council as who have authority to impose it also upon several other motives from which they think it the most beneficial and the securest course for such sinners so to do it becomes necessary to be practised and observed as the Church's constitution even by those who think it not necessary jure divino 4. But yet further were not such Church-constitution in this respect obliging yet when as a thing is so far disputable and doubtful whether jure divino as that such a judgment as this of a superiour Council hath declared it so and whenas on the otherside we our selves grant thus much that such thing if not necessary is very beneficial and may upon this title be lawfully enjoyned by the Church's Superiors reason will dictate here that it is the most prudent way both for the Subjects of a particular Church to observe it and for the Superiors of such Church to enjoyn it upon pain of incurring their censures to be observed But now to return to our business CHAP. X. Of the Second Change of the Publick Liturgy in his time § 157 Ia setting forth a second Form of Common Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate THus much concerning the Reformation made in the first new Form of the Publick Service under King Edward to say nothing here of the first additions to the Mass made