who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
where they could be secure of no breach in greater matters § 119 To η. Where concerniâ—g the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations To η. That the words urged out of the charge against Winchester prove not the Clergy's reception of or submission to all the Kings Injunctions touching the Reformation but only to the first Injunctions That whether they be extended to the first or to all they must be understood in some such sense as this That at that time when this charge against Winchester was drawn there were as yet none other known to the Council that did by open Protestation and Letters as it follows in that charge shew a wilful disobedience thereto c. Or else the verity of them will not consist with the story of those times which often signify a great opposition and averseness in many of the Clergy besides Winchester to the Kings proceedings in the alteration of Religion so far as that many were silenced suspended imprisoned ejected out of their Spiritual Preferments for this cause § 120 For evidencing which see first in Fox p. 1192. Bishop Bonner's protestation concerning these first Injunctions and Homilies when they were tendered unto him by the Commissioners which protestation was so far from being interpreted an obedient reception or reverent observance of them that for it he was sent to the Fleet. And what was done by Gardiner and Bonner leading Bishops that it was done also by many others I pray you review Mr. Fox's words before recited § 107 That for the most part the Bishops of Churches and Diocesses were changed which you may compare with what is said before § 107. of the many new Bishops made by King Edward That Learned Men were sent for out of forreign Countries surely not because the Leaders of the Universities were not so well studied see their Disputations but because not so conformable to the new prescriptions That of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward some to another where he names Bonner Gardiner Tonstal but might have mentioned also Heath Day Vesy that we know of And to the same purpose much-what speaketh Godwin p. 223. A. D. 1548 who after having commended Day and Tonstal for very learned Pre lates saith That the drift of the punishments of such men when in Henry's time they were accounted the chief Lights of our Church he conceives to have been that the rest of that Order might by their Example be admonished without dissimulation either to resign their Bishopricks to others that were thought by the present times more worthy or be induced by this terror to conform themselves to the present Reformation of the Church according to the prescript of the Laws in that behalf lately enacted i. e by Parliament Thus he But that the imprisonment of these or of some other Clergy as also that the dissent of many others to the Kings Injunctions who were not as yet imprisoned for it preceded the confirmation of these Injunctions by any Act of Parliament or Convocation appears from the very Act it self 2. Edw. 6.1 c. Where the Parliament desires of the King That all persons that have offended in the Premises i. e in refusing the Form of Common-Prayer or at least of the Mass Fox p. 1184 imposed by the King before this Act other than such person or persons as now be and remain saith the Act in the ward of the Tower of London or in the Fleet may be pardoned thereof Some Clergy therefore were imprisoned for this cause before this Act and more also had offended in this matter than those who were imprisoned whose pardon here was begged by the Parliament § 121 Which reluctance of the Clergy may be seen also in what Mr. Fox relateth p. 1184 who after he hath first told us how a new Form of Communion was agreed on by certain learned men appointed by the King which Form you must know was not allowed or seen by the first Parliament of King Edward which Parliament appointed Communion in both kinds indeed but this might have been observed without altering or adding one Syllable to the Mass and enjoined by the Council to be duly executed both by the Bishops and their subordinate Clergy thus complains Nevertheless saith he as at no time any thing can be so well done of the godly but that the wicked will find some means to deface the same so likewise at this present thro the perverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness of many inferiour Priests and Ministers of Cathedral and other Churches of this Realm there did arise a marvellous Schism and variety of fashions in celebrating the Common Service and administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church For some zealously allowing the Kings proceedings did gladly follow the order thereof and others though not so willingly admitting them did yet dissemblingly and patchingly use some part of them but many carelesly contemning all would still exercise their old wonted Popery i. e in other language would still retain the former solemn Church Service Thus He. Now this variety of fashions only mentioned by Fox if you desire more particularly to know we find a more punctual relation thereof in Parsons 3. Convers of England 2. Part 12. Chapter What a Babylonical confusion saith he in the two first years of the Kings Reign ensued upon these innovations in all Churches is wonderful to recount For some Priests said the Latine Mass some the English Communion some both some neither some half of the one half of the other This was very ordinary to say the Introitus Confiteor in English and then the Collects and some other parts in Latine after that again the Epistles and Gospels in English and then the Canon of the Mass in Latine and lastly the Benediction and last Gospel in English But that which was of more importance and impiety some did consecrate Bread and Wine others did not but would tell the people before-hand That they would not consecrate but restore them their Bread and Wine back again as they received it from them only adding to it the Church's benediction And those that did consecrate did consecrate in divers forms some aloud some in secret some in one form of words some in another And after Consecration some held up the Host to be adored after the old fashion and some did not and of those that were present some did kneel down and adore others did shut their eyes others turn away their faces others run out of the Church crving Idolatry Hitherto Parsons View also Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform p. 63.74 concerning this-matter Whereby we see how averse and unsatisfied divers of the Clergy were with the Kings alterations § 122 And this not only before his new Liturgy is said to be confirmed by Act of Parliament and Convocation but after also For afterward we find the King and his Council in their Letter to the Bishop of London Fox p. 1186. complaining That it
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
then a Church under persecution until Moses was rais'd up by God a Lawful Magistrate over them The cases are alike for all the world No Magistrate did assemble them in Aegypt and good reason why they had none to do it But this was no barr but when Moses arose authoriz'd by God had the Trumpets by God deliver'd to him He might take them keep them use them for that end for which God gave them to assemble the Congregation Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh or Constantine then Nero See also a Field of the Church l. 5. c. 52. Dr Field His Third Thesis is That the Secular Prince cannot b Soave Hist of Conc. Tr. Pag. 77. depose or eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy nor introduce others into the place of the ejected But the Quaestion here is not Whether the Prince can eject any of the Clergy from the Exercise of their Office but Whether he can depose any for not Exercising it While the Clergy faithfully discharge their Office the Prince ought to protect them and if for this they suffer no doubt but they are Martyrs But it is possible they may abuse their power and then it is to be enquir'd Whether Civil Laws may not inhibit them the Vse of it This Author holds the Negative and tells us 1st They cannot eject them at pleasure without giving any cause thereof But he doth not pretend that the Reforming Princes ever ejected any without a Cause given And therefore he adds 2ly Neither may Princes depose them for any Cause which concerns things Spiritual but with this Limitation without the consent of the Clergy I could wish he had here told us what he ment by things Spiritual For things as well as Persons Spiritual are of great Extent d Pope Paul the 3d told the Duke of Mantua that it is the Opinion of the Doctors that Priest's Concubines are of Ecclsiastical Jurisdiction But he gives us his reason for his assertion Because it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam as in Personam and the Prince as has been mention'd in the 1st Thesis has no Autority to judge such Causes purely Spiritual Now the power denied to the Prince in the 1st Thesis is to determine matters of Faith But may not the Prince judge whether an Ecclesiastick deserves Deprivation without determining a Matter of Faith May not he judge according to what has been already determin'd by the Church Or may not he appoint such Delegates as can determine matters of Faith Or are all the Causes for which a Clergy-man may be depriv'd merely Spiritual By Virtue of this Thesis he proves the Ejection of the Western Patriarch unlawful pag. 37. Now was not this Matter of Faith already determine by the Clergy Had they not unanimously decreed That he had no more Autority here then any other forreign Bishop And can the King be said here to have acted without the consent of the Clergy And yet that matter of fact is applied to this Thesis As for the Ejection of the Bishops in King Edward's time is not that confest to have been for not acknowledging the Regal Supremacy pag. 70. But this was a matter which wanted no new Determination for the Church-Autority had decided it in their Synod in King Henry's Reign But it is said the Judges were not Canonical as being the King's Commissioners part Clergy part Laity But neither was the cause purely Canonical for denying the Supremacy was not only an infringment of the Canon but also a Violation of an Act of Parliament As for the Bishops Bonner and Gardiner they were accus'd for not asserting the Civil power of the King in his Nonage Nor do they plead Conscience for not doing it but deny the Matter of Fact * Burn. His Ref. part 2. l. 1. p. 127. 165. The same Objections were then made against their Deprivation as are reassum'd by this Author now and therefore it may suffice to return the same answers That the Sentence being only of Deprivation from their Sees it was not so entirely of Ecclesiastical Censure but was of a mix'd nature so that Lay-men might joyn in it since they had taken Commissions from the King for their Bishopricks by which they held them only during the Kings pleasure they could not complain of their Deprivation which was done by the King's Autority Others who look'd farther back remembred that Constantine the Emp. had appointed Secular Men to enquire into some things objected to Bishops who were call'd Cognitores or Triers and such had examin'd the business of Coecilian Bishop of Carthage even upon an Appeal after it had been tried by several Synods and given Judgment against Donatus and his party The same Constantine had also by his Autority put Eustathius out of Antioch Athanasius out of Alexandria and Paul out of Constantinople and though the Orthodox Bishops complain'd of their particulars as done unjustly at the false suggestion of the Arrians yet they did not deny the Autority of the Emperors in such cases Ibid. p. 127. But neither is the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by this Author allow'd to be a proper Judge that because He did not Act by his Canonical Superiority in the Church but by the Autority he joyntly with the rest receiv'd from the King As if he had ever the less the power of a Metropolitan because He was also the King's Commissioner By this way of arguing the Decrees of Oecumenical Councils will be invalid because they were call'd to determine Controversies by the command of Emperors But how Uncanonical soever King Edward's Bishops are said to have been He does not except against Queen Mary's Bishops tho' they in depriving the Reformed acted by Commission from the Queen As for the Bishops ejected in Q. Elizabeth's time it has been already said it was for a Civil cause i. e. refusing the Oath of Supremacy which why it should be lawful in her Father's time and unlawful in her's why it should be contriv'd by Roman Catholics in that Reign and scrupled by the same Roman Catholics in this Why it should be inoffensive when exprest in larger terms and scandalous when mitigated whence on a sudden the Refusers espied so much Obliquity in that Oath which they had all took before probably either as Bishops or Priests in the reigns of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th whence this change of things proceeded unless from secret intimations from Rome or their own Obstinacy will not easily be conjectur'd As for his Note that what is sayd of the other Clergy may be said likewise of the Patriarch for any Autority which he stands posses'd of by such Ecclesiastical Canons as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government He has been often told by our Authors that Patriarchs are an Humane Institution That as they were erected so they
need to meddle with any other since We never did own the Autority of any but what were so establish'd I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph §. 25.26 because what is said there is unsaid in the 26th But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark He supposes that Gardiner retracted his acknowledgment of a Regal Supremacy for this reason because by sad experience he saw it much enlarg'd beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintain'd it just § 46 But else-where this same Author will suppose that Gardiner was ensnar'd in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's and this Sense which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure § 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarg'd In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been perform'd in this Chapter We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanc'd then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme promis'd to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent and requested that the Old ones might be Reform'd The rest of his Discourse is only flourish which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been compriz'd in fewer Words and this would have heightned our Esteem of the Author tho' it might have deprest the price of the Pamphlet A Reply to his 3d Chapter § 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament Repeal'd and not Repeal'd make no difference with him All the Expressions which seem to extend the Supremacy are invidiously rak'd together and those which limit it craftily supprest The Statutes are put upon the rack and because the Text doth not speak plain enough our Author has added his Gloss He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction but restor'd the Old nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy who certainly did not delude the King with the Complement of an empty Title The extent of this Jurisdiction annex'd to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction here ascrib'd to the Prince might have been spar'd if he had attended to an easie distinction frequently met with in our Writers They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience or External that which is practis'd in exterior Courts That proceeds by Spiritual Censures this by force and corporal Punishments That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme and from him deriv'd to Ecclesiastic Governours Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annex'd to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum tho' what is urg'd thence needs no Reply that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church § 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but the Clergy too Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign Every Government has a right to dispence with it's own Acts and nothing farther is challeng'd in that Statute No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom but from the Legislative power of the Realm and the same power which gave them life might dispense with them This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesom Acts made in King Henry's Reign but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince but his Ancient Right for some Years indeed usurp'd by the Pope but now vindicated This is the true import of that Statute which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope to whom it never rightly belonged but not from the Clergy it being expresly provided in the Act that all Licenses be granted by the Arch-Bishop or 2 Spiritual Persons In case of the Arch-Bishop's refusal the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis it ought the rather to be excus'd since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observ'd that that Thesis is contrary to it self His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law this Act I am sure whence he infers it positively asserts the King to be Supreme § 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirm'd by the Patriarch is taken away The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome otherwise cal'd the Pope to or for the office of Bishop or Arch-Bishop of this Realm But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as ow no Subjection to any Patriarch and therefore have no necessity of being confirm'd by him Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity for it supposes none The King's Presentation to a Bishoprick against which he is so warm was no new Usurpation but an ancient Right had he liv'd some Centuries before the Reformation he would have had this Grievance to complain of The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated but for the Reader 's mortification The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv p. 65. as in it The said Arch-Bishop when no Arch-Bishop had been mention'd before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period
no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever Secondly That for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop Commissioners by the Kings Highness to be appointed shall have full power and authority to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same and no further Appeals to be made These Commissioners therefore appointed by the King are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod or to the Patriarch § 34 Again 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament That no speaking doing or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the Kings Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy From which all that I would note is this that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy and do declare that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them Again it is Enacted by Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540 are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and shall suffer pains of death by Burning Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy without any Appeal as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19 c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis And the Protestants in justifying this Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Or A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People set forth by the King's Authority at that time or against the Six Articles which were in the same Act Established as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. the Publishing of which Act saith Lord Herbert p. 447. gave no little occasion of murmur since to revoke the conscience not only from its own Court but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law as is there Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. set down §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded § 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is That Henry the Eighth made no new Law See likewise his Vindic. p. 86. 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth were only declarative of old Law not enactive of new Law proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert and of the Lord Coke Reports Fifth Part. And 2ly Schism Guarded p. 61 62. That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso Fox the First of these if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke Reports §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. c. You shall find no such thing if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes You may find Appeals to the Pope or other Forreign Judge and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus to have been prohibited by former Laws that is in some particular Cases wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights Profits Securities or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor Vobis posteris vestris Regibus c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66. This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5 c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where upon pain of a Premunire all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome But this is in certain Cases only see Vindic. p. 81. Cases indeed Ecclesiastical but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects which all Ecclesiastical matters I hope neither are nor are pretended to be viz. these Cases Popes refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question Again The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent whereby saith the Statute the Kings Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away and so the Realm destitute as well of Council as of Substance surely these are Temporal Considerations and so the Crown of England which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope c. the Regality that is in those Temporal things above named In these Cases Bulls c from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited as infringing the Civil Rights And to this Statute in such case it is said there the Lords Spiritual gave their consent But meanwhile making Protestations saith the Statute that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church And Richard the Second notwithstanding this Act was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it 2. Rich. 2.7 Again you may find perhaps Appeals Bulls c prohibited in general without the Kings content first obtained thereto But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them but only out of an intention to examine them first whether any thing were contained in them
a Lay Vicar-General and p. 20 That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use than afterward in times well ballanced and established meaning those following times wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince And as for these days of King Edward what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people but the new Divines of Edward acknowledged and enstated in the King and Parliament may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper when in Prison sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary Episcopis Decanis wherein he cites them before the High Court of Parliament â—ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies i. e for so far as any man can be Judge In this Letter after having urged Deut. 17.8 because of the mention made there of a Judge besides the Priest Voâ— omnes saith he obtestor ut causam hanc vel aliam quamcunqne ob religionem ortam inter nos vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro excelso senatu sese religiosè animo submisso judicio authoritati Verbi Dei subjiciat Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat ut palam e. c lites inter nos componantur idque coram competenti judice Quid hoc est igitur Quo jure contenditis Vultis nostri causae nostrae testes accusatores judices esse Nos tantùm legem evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus ut coram competenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium Non vos fugit quomodo publicè palam in facie ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni in summâ curià Parliamenti veritas verbi Dei per fidos doctos pios ministros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit Quae quocunque titulo tempore universalitate splenduit ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari per proceres heroas ac doctos hujus regni erat mandatum statim evanuit c. Here that Bishop professeth when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion not the Synod but the Parliament the competent Judge therein and urgeth if I rightly understand him the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgment which as it was then affected would have cast him It seemeth Not by that he faith Tantum legem Dei in causâ religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him a Prisoner for this Controversy By the Clergy's No. By the Parliament's No for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter By the Scripture then its self But this is urged by both sides to speak for them and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament than it did before So that in nominating no other final Judge the Bishops Request here in summe is that his Cause may never be tryed by any Judge CHAP. V. King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary § 48 AFter King Edward's Death in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign a Princess otherwise principled The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Popes Supremacy re-acknowledged all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church in innovating the Forms of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments of Ordination of Church Rites and Discipline and Jurisdiction in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and composing new ones All was now by an equal Authority of Prince Clergy and State reversed repealed ejected and Religion only rendred much poorer as for Temporals put into the same course which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth before a new Wife or a new Title was by him thought on So that any new Reformation to come afterward must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure being now by the like Authority defaced and thrown down § 49 This Restitution of things made in Queen Mary's days will chiefly appear to you in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap where the ancient Form of Divine Service c used in Henry the Eighths days is restored as being the Service saith the Act which we and our Fore-fathers found in this Church of England left unto us by the Authority of the Catholick Church And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church and several Acts of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws c or introduced new Forms of Divine Service of Election and Ordination of Bishops and Priests are repealed And in 1 and 2. Mar. 6. chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Hereticks first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again and the Statutes to this purpose which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy are revived § 50 And in 1 and 2. Mar. 8. c where the Pope's Supremacy is re-acknowledged when also as Fox observes p. 1296. the Queen's Stile concerning Supremacy was changed and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted as also Bonner Bishop of London being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Arch-Bishop did omit in his Writs to the Clergy Authoritate Illustrissimae c legitime suffulttus In which Statute also the whole Nation by their Representative in Parliament ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism repealing the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's time against the Popes Supremacy and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy set down before § 22. and § 23 whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased to reform Errors Heresies c i e. to do the Offices of the Clergy In which Statute also the Clergy in a distinct Supplication beginning Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati c calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights Jurisdictions Liberties taken from her by the injustice of former times The words are Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus
Edw. 6.2 where the Arch-Bishop is necessitated to consecrate such person as the King from whom all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is derived shall present or he refusing the King may appoint any other two Bishops for him to do it in his stead ergo so might Queen Mary according to these Statutes § 69 Thus much That Queen Mary's Clergy were a lawful Clergy which indeed except for a few and those not yet chosen or acting in the beginning of her Reign cannot be called in question and That their reversing the former Constitutions of Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth's Clergy as to the Authority that did it was a lawful Synodical Act. But in the next place suppose that the Queen had acted singly without or against her Clergy but with the Approbation of those Governors in the Church Catholick as are the lawful Superiors to this Clergy in re-establishing the former Profession of Religion used in Henry the Eighth's time before the Reformation yet so far as this Profession is evident to have been according to the Constitutions of the Church and of former Synods Superior to the Synods of this Nation which Constitutions do therefore stand still in their just force this Act of hers would still be justifiable because Sovereigns have such a Supremacy acknowledged by all due unto them as to use a Coactive Power in causing the Execution within their Dominions of such Church Canons as are granted to be in force without any inferiour further Licence or consent thereto Nor is this doing any more than if the King of England now re-established in his Throne should without or against the Vote of the present Ministery heâ—e restore the Bishops and the Ecclesiastical Laws again to their former office and vigour which these men never had any just or superior Authority to displace or abrogate CHAP. VI. The former Supremacy re-assumed by Qu. Elizabeth § 70 IN the last place we come to the times of Queen Elizabeth where we find by the Authority of the Queen and her Parliament 3. What Supremacy claimed c in the times of Q. Eliz. all the repeals of the Statutes of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth in order to the Regal Supremacy and Reformation which Repeals were made in Queen Mary's days now again repealed except in Two 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and 35. Hen. 8.3 c. which give to Henry the Eighth the Title of Head of the Church of England which was changed by the Queen into that of Governor as better befitting a Woman As for Bishop Bramha's Observation of Two other Statutes of Henry the Eighth unrestored by Queen Eliz. 28. Hen. 8.10 c. An Act saith he of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome out of this Realm and 35. Hen. 8.5 c. An Act made for Corroboration of the former if you please to view them and compare with them 1 Eliz. 1. c. you will find the cause to be not the Queens preserving and retaining here any Authority of the Pope which Henry renounced but the Six Articles in the one and the old Forms of Oaths in the other thought fit by her to be laid aside and all the Power and Priviledges whatsoever of Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals that were conceded to Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth That as ample a Supreacy was claimed by Parliament conferred oâ— her as on K. Hen. or Ed. as fully transferred to Queen Elizabeth For which see the Act 1. Eliz. 1. c. see the same 8. Eliz. 1. c. running thus That all Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been exercised for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Orders and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by Authority of this Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And that your Highness your Heirs c shall have full Power and Authority by vertue of this Act to name and authorize such persons as your Majesty shall think meet without any being obliged as Henry the Eighth was that half the number should be of the Clergy to exercise and execute under your Highness all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and to visit reform and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms c which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power may lawfully be reformed and that such persons shall have full power by vertue of this Act to execute all the Premises any matter or cause to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Provided always that no manner of Order Act or Determination for any matter of Religion or cause Ecclesiastical made by the Authority of this present Parliament shall be adjudged i. e by those persons at any time to be any Error Heresy Schism c any Decree Constitution or Law whatsoever the same be to the contrary notwithstanding this Proviso perhaps was put in because all the Bishops that were in the Parliament opposed this Statute See Cambden 1. Eliz. Provided again that such persons authorized to reform c shall not in any wise have Authority to determine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy I suppose by Heresy is meant here any Error contrary to what ought to be believed and practised in Divine matters but only Such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first Four General Councils or by any other General Councils wherein the same is declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures or Such as hereafter shall be judged and determined to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation here therefore nothing whether by the Clergy or other could be de novo declared or adjudged Heresy unless the High Court of Parliament also adjudged it to be so § 71 In the same Statute concerning the Extent of the Queen's Supremacy it is expresly ordained That the Branches Sentences and words of the said several Acts i. c. made in Henry the Eighth's time touching Supremacy and every one of them shall be deemed and taken to extend to your Highness as fully and largely as ever the same Acts did extend to the said late King Henry the Eighth your Highnesses Father The same thing also appears in the Queen's Admonition annexed to her Injunctions to prevent any sinister Interpretations of the Oath of Supremacy then imposed which saith That the Queen's Majesty informed that some of her Subjects found some scruple in the Form of this Oath c would that all her loving Subjects should understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other Duty or Allegiance required by that Oath than was acknowledged to be due to King Henry the Eighth her Majesty's Father or King Edward the Sixth her Majesty's Brother It proceeds shewing
§ 70. And see the Reason given by Dr. Heylin why Parliaments which in former Ages abstained from them in this Age of Henry the Eighth began to intermeddle in stating of matters of Religion namely this reason A new Supream in Ecclesiastical Affairs then set up Engl. Reform Justified p. 41. Where he first relateth out of Walsingham how long since Wickleff having many Doctrines strange and new which he desired to establish in the Church of England and seeing he could not authorize them in a regular way addressed his Petition to the Parliament laying this down for a Position That the Parliament might lawfully examine and reform the Disorders and Corruptions of the Church and upon a discovery of the Errors and Corruptions of it devest her of all Tithes and Temporal Endowments till she were reformed But neither his Petition nor Position saith he found any welcome in that Parliament and then he goeth on thus To say truth as long as the Clergy were in Power and had Authority in Convocation to do what they would in matters which concerned Religion those of the Parliament conceived it neither safe nor fitting to intermeddle in such business as concerned the Clergy for sear of being questioned for it at the Church's Barr the Church being then conceived to have the just Supremacy herein But when that Power was lessened tho it were not lost by the Submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth and by the Act of the Kings Supremacy in matters of Religion which ensued upon it then did the Parliament begin to intrench upon the Church's Rights to offer at and entertain such businesses as formerly were held peculiar to the Clergy only next to dispute their Charters and reverse their Priviledges and finally to impose many hard Laws upon them Thus he Which Example of the Parliaments meddling with Opinions and stating of Heresy thus begun under Henry the Eighth's Church Supremacy hath made some Parliaments since also so active with the assistance of some Persons selected by them out of the Clergy of the same Inclinations in altering modelling establishing an Orthodox Religion and hath emboldened Mr. Prinn see Heylin p. 27. to affirm it an ancient genuine just and lawful Prerogation thereof to establish true Religion in this Church by which establishing if Mr. Prin means not judging of Truth and Error in matter of Religion but only requiring Obedience to the Judgment of the Church this is willingly granted to be an establishing duly belonging to that Supream Court. § 83 I have dwelt the longer on the Instances foremen tioned Where Codeer the complaâ—â—ts made by Pâ—testaats of his abuse of the Suprenacy that you may see when a Prince together with his particular Clergy or rather whom out of them he shall choose without these being linked in a due subordination to the whole claimeth such a power of composing Models of Christian Faith and declaring all those his Subjects Hereticks who do not believe and obey such his Determinations what danger what mutability Christian Religion incurrs in such a Nation as often as this Supreme and Independent Head is not every way Orthodox And so it happened in the Acts of this new-sprung Supremacy of Henry that those who much pleased themselves in it whilst it run the course they would have it in abating the former Power of the Clergy in throwing down Monasteries Religious Vows Relicks Images c yet afterward lamented it as much when necessity of the Kings compliance with Forreign Princes and the influence of new evil Counsellors saith Fox p. 1036. made the same Supremacy produce a contrary sort of Fruit which they could not so easily digest I mean the Six Articles here also pronouncing Heresy to the Opposers and punishing the same with Fire and Faggot and the Prohibition and suppression of many Godly Books as Mr. Fox calls them but full of Errors and Heresies as the Supream Head of this Church and also as Arch-Bishop Cranmer whose Declaration against them see in Fox p. 1136. then judged them some of the Contents of which Godly Books as they were then collected by Cranmer and other Prelates you may see in Fox ibid. and the Prohibiting all Women Artificers Husbandmen c from reading the Scriptures of which more anon § 84 Which Supremacy so ill used as he thought forced from Mr. Fox that sad complaint both in particular concerning the Kings imposing of the Six Articles p. 1037. That altho they contained manifest Errors Heresies and Absurdities against all Scripture and Learning whereby we may see how these Supream Heads also may deviate from the truth and how dangerous it is to commit the Reformation of all Errors and Heresies into their hands who by this Power instead thereof may enjoyn Errors and Heresies and that even against all Scripture and Learning as Henry the Eighth tho a Scholar is here supposed to have done and that even to pronouncing those Hereticks that do not submit to such Heresy he goes on Yet such was he miserable Adversity of that time and of the Power of Darkness yet King Henry said the times were full of Light that the simple Cause of Truth was utterly forsaken of all friends For every man seeing the Kings mind who was now the Legislator in Spirituals so fully addicted upon politick respects to have these Articles to pass forward few or none in that Parliament would appear who either could perceive that which was to be defended or durst defend that they understood to be true And also in general concerning that Kings managing his Supremacy p. 1036. from which Posterity might have learnt some wisdome To many saith he who be yet alive and can testify these things it is not unknown How variable the State of Religion stood in these days How hardly and with what difficulty it came forth what chances and changes it suffered even as the King was ruled and gave ear sometimes to one sometimes to another so one while it went forward at another Season as much backward again and sometime clean altered and changed for a Season according as they could prevail who were about the King So long as Queen Anne lived the Gospel had indifferent Success Here then the Supream Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and managed the Affairs of Religion accordingly After that she by sinister Instigation of some about the King was made away the course of the Gospel began again to decline but that the Lord stirred op the Lord Cromwel opportunely to help in that behalf who did much avail for the increase of Gods true Religion Here then the Supream Head of the Church was directed by a Laick and managed Religion accordingly and much more had he brought to perfection if the pestilent Adversaries maligning the prosperous Glory of the Gospel had not supplanted his vertuous Proceedings Mr. Fox names not Cranmer amongst these Worthies because he was an Agent in many of those Proceedings of Henry the Eighth which
Act which is by this Author judg'd contrary to his first Thesis is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking holding or doing against any Laws call'd Spiritual Laws made by Autority of the See of Rome which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm § 34. p. 39. or the King's Praerogative shall be deem'd to be Haeresie from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Haeresie Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Haereticks Whether such speaking or doing be Haeresie or not they have power to ordain that it shall not be deem'd so i. e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment to use our Author's expression of another Act made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queens Majesties Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religtion shall be to all intents adjudg'd as Traytors and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason and the like of Persons willingly reconcil'd Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler or Reconciled is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traytor all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments without being accountable for this to any Autority under God's And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself or acts against such Laws of a Forreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right Another Act condemn'd by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Autority to make Ecclesiastical laws §. 43. p. 56. and pursuant to this 42 Articles of Religion publish'd by the Autority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign Now not to engage my self in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title praefix'd they are said to be Articuli de quibus in Synodo London A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros convenerat Regia autoritate in lucem editi I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London §. 166. p. 187. So that here is only a part of the Synod employ'd in drawing up these Articles and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transfer'd from Ecclesiastial persons to Secular which was by him to have been prov'd Another Inference which he deduces from these Theses is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy §. 185. p. 214. Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended will best be learnt from our Articles * Art 37. The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not or ought not to be subject to any forreign Jurisdiction So far for the extent of this power but now for the restraint Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended We give not to our Prince the ministring either of God's word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn evil doers It is therefore by our Author to be prov'd that they who give no more to their Prince then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself do alienate to the Secular Governour any Autority or Office which they the Clergy have receiv'd and been charg'd with by Christ with a command to execute the same to the end of the World which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile That by this Oath or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assum'd by her self or given to her by Others then is consistent with that Autority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us * Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684. Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Autority but what was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning Her Majesty is well pleas'd to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contain'd in the act therein mention'd against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath So that it 's evident from this Injunction that it 's no way here stated what Autority belongs to the Church and what to the Civil Magistrate farther then that the Queen as justly she might challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and neither did nor would challenge more but what that was is not here determin'd and she is content without such Determination if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all forreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil Another Act which He finds repugnant to his his 1st pag. 36. Thesis is King Henry the Eth's claiming a right that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave
's of England were always Supreme Nor is this Nomination at all injurious to the Divine Right of Bishops which is not deriv'd from the Persons Electing or Nominating but the Pastors Consecrating But we have him again crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He finds the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. By Virtue of their Acts to take Informations concerning the not using of the Common-Prayer c. Therein prescrib'd and to punish the same by Excommunication c. The first and last of these cs are very artificially placed for corrupting the Text. After Bishops should have follow'd Chancellors and Commissaries after Excommunication Sequestration and other Censures and Processes So that the Autority given by this Act doth not necessarily respect the Bishops and that Power of Excommunicating which they have jure divino but may relate to the power given to Chancellors and Commissaries and other Officers who plead no such divine right to their respective Functions or if the Bishops are included yet not so as that they derive the power of Excommunicating from this Act but of inflicting the other punish-ments which by this Act may be inflicted Or let us suppose the Bishops authoriz'd by this Act to Excommunicate and Excommunication taken in the strictest sense for internal Censures yet this will be no injury to their Jus divinum untill it be prov'd that because God has gave the Bishops a power to Excommunicate therefore the King may not command them to put it in Execution where there is a just Cause § 41 He finds 32 Persons commission'd to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical But this he found before in King Henry's Reign where it has already been consider'd and whither I refer the Reader as often as this Author shall be pleas'd to remind us of this Discovery § 42 He finds Six Prelates and Six others commissioned to make a new form of Consecration of Bishop's and Priests He might have found that this Act as well as the former was made at the a See the Petitions of the Clergy Burn. Vol. 2. p. 47. request of the Convocation Nothing is by him excepted against the Form it self and for the Autority the Synod petition'd such a Commission might be granted the b Six Prelates and six Divines Bur. V. 2. p. 141. Persons commission'd were all Clergy Men and c King Edwards Articles Art 35. Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 218. the Synod confirm'd it when done As for the Oath against the Pope inserted in the new Ordinal it was by birth a Roman-Catholic d Fox p. 1092. King Henry's Bishops took it without scruple That e Compare the Oath in Fox with the Oath of Supremacy as it now stands part of it which this Author thinks most offensive is since put out and he may be as severe as he pleaseth upon a Non-entity The Heretical Catechism in the 43d Paragraph shall be spoken to when it meets us agen in the 166th § 43 The 44th would justifie a Protestation of Bishop Bonner's which that Bishop himself a Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 112. recanted He is angry at Fox for calling that Protestation Popish But the Prelate himself in his recantation of it calls it unadvised of ill ex-example unreasonable and undutifull If Fox abuses the Bishop it is because Popish signifies something worse then all these § 45 We are next entertain'd with a confus'd Catalogue of Articles propos'd to Bishop Gardiner's Subscription together with our Author's Notes upon them One of the most pertinent Notes would have been that Bishop b Fox p. 1350. 1357. Gardiner subscrib'd most of these Articles but this was not for his Interest to observe His remark is that tho' in some of these Articles the Autority of Parliament is mention'd yet in none of these is any thing said of the Consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Parliamentary or Regal injunctions valid That the consent of the Clergy was urg'd to this Bishop I hope he does not deny I am sure c §. 110. it is urg'd by r. that in the charge given in against Gardiner it is said that the Injunctions were of all men for all sorts obediently receiv'd And that this charge was given in is not denied in the Reply to r. §. 119. elsewhere He confesses it The meaning must be that this consent was not urg'd under the modality of making the Regal Injunctions valid Nor do I see any Necessity it should for Gardiner had not yet so far refin'd his gross sense of the Supremacy but that he still own'd his Obligation to obey His Majestie 's Godly Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion Neither could the Imposers of these Injunctions according to their Principles lay so great a stress on the consent of the Clergy for if the matter of the Injunctions was unlawful no Church-Autority could make them lawful but if it was agreeable to the Law of God then the Civil Autority without the Synodal if that had been wanting was sufficient From this idle remark the Author has rais'd as idle a Consequence From this non-mentioning the consent of the Clergy he collects that when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mention'd as sometimes it is it is not to add any Autority to these Injunctions thereby Now to me it seemes a wild Inference that because the Synodal consent was once not urg'd as necessary therefore when-ever it was urg'd it was thought to add no Autority I may certainly obey my Prince in a thing lawful tho' my Pastor doth not at the same time exact this Obedience from me But when they both require the same Duty there ariseth a new tie of Obedience and I am now under a double Obligation But least we should wonder why the King and Parliament never pleaded any Necessity of the Synodal consent the Author conjectures the reasons to be 1st Because some of the Voters were displac'd and so their suffrage less Authentical But these places were supplied and then I would know why those who succeeded into their Pastoral charge did not also succeed into their Synodal Autority and if so why the Reformers should think the Act of a Synod less Authentical when Ridley sat there than when Bonner did His second reason is Because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force but so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were superior to the English Clergy And if the King urg'd his and his Subject's freedom from the Laws of the Church Vniversal so must He also from the Laws of his own Church National Church Superior Synods and the Church-Vniversal are words which sound big but when they come to be construed the Laws of the Church signifie Papal Decrees Superior Synods are put for any Council that is forreign and the Church-Vniversal dwindles into Roman-Catholic In this case I hope we may obey our Lawful Pastors tho' we reject an Usurper
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
be changed he confessed both that they were ancient and might in some manner be inculpably used but yet thought it better that they should be removed 1. because not appointed in Scripture by word or example 2. because they might be or also had been abused'to superstition 3. because the Church should partake as little as might be of the same usages with Anti-Christ Bucer Censur in Ordinat Eccles Angl. p. 458. 467. c. § 179 Upon such exceptions taken at the Liturgy as well from abroad as also by some of the preciser sort at home saith Dr. Heylin Reform Justif p. 31. and Hist of Reform p. 107. and because there had risen divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the said Service rather by the curiosity of the Minister and mistakers than of any other worthy cause saith the Act of Parliament it self 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. which shews what a good opinion they had of the former Book It was committed to be new corrected but by what persons we know not The Act without any such Encomium of these Reviewers as of the first Composers faith only That the King caused it to be faithfully and godly perused explained and made fully perfect Perhaps it was corrected which is one of Dr. Heylin's conjectures See before § 42. by those who were appointed by the King about this time to compose a Form of Ordination which Form the Act joined with this new Service-Book But it could not be done by the same persons that composed the former at least not by all of them because Day before this was ejected out of his Bishoprick and two more Shyp and Holbeck as I think before this deceased and Harley and Taylor were chosen their Successors The thing matters not much-Thus corrected it was presented to the Parliament and it only by them authorized to be used § 160 Which second Form besides casting out several other things that were retained in the former Among the rest Prayer for the dead and several expressions that seemed to â—â—ser the Reaâ—or Corporal Preseace in the Eucharist as the Commemoration of Saints and Prayer for the dead many Rites in the Administration of Baptisme the liberty of extream Vnction the Oblation and Prayers in the Communion which were made immediately after Consecration spoken-of before § 148 149. above all seems to have taken a vigilant special care for the altering and removing out of the former Form all those passages Which might argue any real or corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ whether it be by Trans or Con-substantiation or any other way with the Symbols Whereas therefore in the Prayer of Consecration these words are in the Missal Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis Corpus Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini Nostri Jesu Christi and so in the first Form of King Edward these words Hear us O Merciful Father we beseech the and with Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bl ✚ ess and sanc ✚ tify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread md Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Both the Missal and that Form ordering the person consecrating at this time to take both the Bread and the Cup into his hands Instead of this the second Form is thus changed Hear us O Merciful Father we beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood omitting also the Priests touching or handling the Pattin or Chalice which is done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. Whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols of which also Bucer saith p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quicquam his elementis adesse Christi extra usum praebitionis receptionis For the same reason it seems to be that the Glory be to God on high c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum Corda the one is transferred after the Communion and the other omitted Likewise whereas in the administring of these Mysteries the Missal useth this Form Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aternam and so also the first Book of King Edward the Second as it were against the apprehending of any Real Presence to the Symbols or any oral feeding on that Body removeth those words and placeth instead thereof only these Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thankgiving Again Drink this in remembrance c So whereas it is said in the first Form in the Player of humble access Grant us so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries the second omits in these holy Mysteries Likewise at the end of the Communion-Service is added this Rubrick declaring that kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament is required for a signification of the humble acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy receiver and not for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or in regard of any real or essential Presence of Christ's natural Body and Blood Whereas it s ordained in the Administration of the Lord's Supper that the Communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion which thing is well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver and to avoid the profanation and disorders which about the Holy Communion might else ensue Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any Adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received or unto any real and essential Presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood For as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine they remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry And as concerning the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ they are in heaven and not here for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural Body to be in moe places than one at one time Thus that Rubrick thought fit to be omitted in the Common-Prayer-Book of Queen Elizabeth of which see the Reason below § 179. n. 2. Accordingly the Altar was changed into a Table the sides whereof were set North and South set near the Reading-place ordered at the Communion time to be covered with a fair white Linnen Cloth the other vestments prohibited save only a Surplice for a Priest and Rochet for a
as particularly that 1. Edw. 6.2 mentioned before § 40 Yet so it was that all the chief Acts that King Edward's Parliaments or Clergy had made concerning the Reformation were now revived Sec 1. Eliz. â— c. 2. and all that Queen Mary's or Henry the Eighth's save in the matter of Supremacy Parliaments or Clergy had done against it was repealed But this §. 179. n. 3. Bâ—t nâ—t by the Clergy tho done in spiritual matters was done by the sole authority of the Queen and her Parliament without obtaining any Synod to reverse the contrary decrees of the former Synods under those two Princes nay further whilst all the Bishops that fate then in Parliament openly opposed these Innovations Cambden Hist Eliz. p 9. By her own sole authority the Queen likewise published certain Injunctions to the Clergy And now the Regal Supremacy being thus restored only by the Civil power an Oath of Supremacy was also drawn up and imposed on all Ecclesiastical persons upon penalty of the Refuser's losing all their Ecclesiastical promotion benefice and office 1. Eliz. 1. c. And so this Oath being unanimously refused by all the Bishops that then sate save only the Bishop of Landaff I say all that then sate For by reason of a contagious sickness that then reigned within less than the space of a twelve-month saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Mary p. 81. almost one half of the English Bishops had made void their Sees three Bishopricks having been void from 1557 three Bishops dying some few weeks before the Queen three not long after one on the same day which with the death of so many of the Priests also in several places did much facilitate the way saith he to that Reformation that soon after followed they were all ejected out of their Bishopricks and with them of the chief of the Clergy fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Deans twelve Arch-Deacons six Abbots Camb. p. 17. fifty Prebendaries lost their Spiritual Preferments Meanwhile many others saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Qu. Eliz. p. 115. who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome dispensing with themselves in outward conformities upon a hope of such revolutions in Church-affairs as had hapned formerly § 180 Here that we may examine the lawfulness of the ejection of these Prelates for refusing such Oath The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy The unlawfulness there of upon which depends the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Acts of the Clergy succeeding them I will first set you down the form of the Oath which was this I do testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce all forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall assist and defend to my power all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm § 181 This Oath you see consists of two parts a Supremacy attributed and professed to the Prince Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend and a Supremacy denyed and renounced to any Forreign power And that I may speak more distinctly in this matter 1. As to the first of these thus much is freely conceded That the Civil Magistrate hath a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs and that such as none other hath namely this An external coactive power or jurisdiction committed to him by God to enjoyn to his Subjects the observance of the Laws of the Church and of the Laws of God as they are declared to him to be such by the Church and to restrain and punish the transgressors of them whether Clergy or Laity within his Dominions with the Civil Sword which God hath put only into his hands So that no Canons of the Church can be by the Ecclesiasticks or others executed or enforced on the Subject as Laws viz. with external Coaction pecuniary or corporal mulcts or punishments c. before the Secular Prince is pleased to admit such Canons and enroll them amongst his Laws or to concede such coactive power to his Clergy How far also the Kings Supremacy may extend over all Ecclesiastical persons concerning the Investiture and presentation of them so long as their canonical sufficiency is not denyed by the Clergy to such Temporal Church-Possessions as either Princes or others by their permission have conferred on the Church about which hath been in ancient times great Controversy between several Kings of England and the Pope I meddle not to determine Let this for the present be granted as much as any Prince hath claimed It is likewise conceded that in those words of the Oath only Supreme Governor in Spiritual things there is not any thing that expresly extends the Regal Supremacy any further which may be the only supreme power m Ecclesiasticals in one respect and not in another Nor no more is there in the thirty seventh Article of the Church of England which expounds the Kings Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All which he may do and yet be tyed in all things to obey the Church her Laws and to leave to her the sole judgment who are these evil-doers as to the breaking of Gods Laws or who stubborn and heretical persons And such Regal Supremacy will well consist with another either with a domestick Supremacy of his own Clergy in judging Controversies and promulgating Laws in meerly Spirituals or also with a forreign Supremacy and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch over all the Bishops of his Patriarchy in what Prince's Dominions soever or of a General Council over all Provincial or National Churches If therefore only such a Regal Supremacy as this were intended in the Oath it cannot be justly refused viz. If the Oath should run thus I do testify that the King is the Supreme c. as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal that is as this Supremacy is expounded in Article thirty seventh to rule with the Civil Sword all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers And if this word such be inserted in the words following And I do testify that no forreign Prince Prelate c. ought to have any such jurisdiction c. And Ergo I do utterly renounce all such forreign Jurisdiction c. You will say what is gained to the King by an Oath so limited This that no Forreign or Domestick
in this Matter As for this Objection of the Clergy's being aw'd by fear in this Act he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the then Lady Mary which shews the vanity of it p. 142. I am well assur'd saith She speaking of Edward VI. in her Letter to the Council that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it That could an Oecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops unjustly excluded and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first bribed with Mony and promises of Church-praeferment or praeengag'd by Oaths to comply with the Vsurpations of a praetended Spiritual Monarch is not to be accounted a lawful Oecumenical Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such usurpations This is a Thesis which needs no Application I proceed to his Sixth Thesis That the Judgment and consent of some Clergy-men of a Province when they are the lesser part cannot be call'd the judgment and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province This Assertion that a lesser part is not aequall to the Whole is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse and the Reader may hence be convinc'd that our Author doth sometimes travel in the * Educ p. 119. High road of Demonstration But here we desire it may be prov'd either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obey'd rather then the Major part judging contrary to it In the mean time it is easily reply'd that the judgment and consent of some few Bishops * Soave Hist Conc. Tr. p. 153. suppose 48. Bishops and 5. Cardinals giving Canonical Autority to books Apocryphal and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original cannot be esteem'd the judgment and consent of the Catholic Church 7th Thesis That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils or also to a National Synod The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy but because every one must give an account of his own Faith every one is oblig'd to take care that what he submits to the belief of be consistent with his Christianity I am oblig'd to pay all submission to the Church-Autority but the Church having bounds within which she ought to be restrain'd in her Determinations if she transgresses these Limits and acts against that Christianity which she professes to maintain I may rather refuse obedience then forfeit my Christianity If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgment I am answerable for it at Gods Tribunal not because I usurped a right which was never granted me but because I misus'd a Liberty which was indulg'd me This we take to be the case of each private Christian and farther that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right and Worship God as is praescrib'd himself but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions ought to use all those means of discovering the Truth which God has afforded viz. consulting the Pastours of the Church reading the word of God c. And that having discover'd it He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embrac'd but not without the use of that Judgment and Discretion which to them also is allowed If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to enquire on which side God is and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter He is not on the Churches side for her Spiritual Autority Thus a good King of Israel might * 2 King 38.22 take away the High places and Altars and say unto Judah and Jerusalem Ye shall Worship before the Altar at Jerusalem because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses Nor is it any Praejudice against it * 2 King 23.9 That the Priests of the High places refus'd to come up to the Altar at Jerusalem Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute * Mat. 26.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been prov'd to be Felo de se and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have establish'd When the Gallican Church shall have receiv'd all the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils When the Western Patriach shall have rechang'd his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum it may then be seasonable to examine How far National Churches are oblig'd by things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account But I may not omit for the Reader 's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as pag. 38. It is enacted the 32d Hen. 8.26 c. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to God's word and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion c. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believ'd Obey'd c. Vpon which he makes this learned Note Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word i. e. when private Men think them to be so yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrain'd and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word i. e. when the setters forth believe them to be so To obey a thing defin'd according to God's word and to obey a thing defin'd as being according to God's word are Injunctions very different Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have clear'd this point and a School-boy that was to turn this passage into Latin would have known that as is put for which Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus All Decrees and Ordinances which according to Gods word
London b Lord Herbert p. 402. Being afterwards made Bishop of Duresme he was sent with others to perswade Katherine to acquiesce in the Divorce he us'd several Arguments to convince her of the justice of it She urging his former Opinion in favour of her cause he replyed that he had only pleaded for the amplitude and fulness of the Bull but that the Consummation of the former Marriage had now been judicially prov'd the second Marriage declar'd by the Sentences of the Universities incestuous and contrary to the Law of God and therefore by the Pope's Bull however ample indispensable Which is a Demonstration against what this Author asserts that Tonstal was one who justified the second Marriage tho' the former had been Consummate Sanders his diligence in reckoning up those who wrote for the Queen's cause we do not question but we much doubt his Veracity It requir'd an extraordinary diligence to find a book written by a c Sand. p. 53. Bishop of Bristol 13 Years before ever there was such a Bishop-rick But should we grant Sanders's full tale of almost twenty these are neither to be compar'd in Number nor Autority with those who wrote against it An d Burn. Hist V. 1. p. 106. hundred books were shewn in Parliament written for the Divorce by Divines and Lawyers beyond Sea besides the Determinations of twelve the most celebrated Universities of Europe To which might have been added the e See the Abstract of what was written for the Divorce Burn. V. 1. p. 97. Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers the Opinions of the Scool-men the Autority of the Infallible Pope who in our Author's Introduction granted a Bull of Divorce and the Sentence of one more Infallible then He the a Lev. 18.16 and c. 20.21 Author of the Pentateuch This was agreed on all sides that Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impedimentis jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt This was not so Universally agreed as our Author would perswade us for those b Burn. Hist Vol. 1. p. 103. who wrote for the Queen's Cause pleaded that the Pope's power of dispencing did reach farther then to the Laws of the Church even to the Laws of God for he dayly dispenced with the breaking of Oaths and Vows tho' that was expresly contrary to the c With us the third second Commandment And when the Question was debated in the Convocation One d Id. ibid. p. 129. voted the Prohibition to be Moral but yet Dispensable Others gather'd the Law in Levit. 18.16 dispensable in some cases from the express Dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5 But on the other side it was then answer'd e Ibid. p. 105. that the Provision about marrying the Brother's Wife only proves the ground of the Law is not in it's own Nature immutable but may be dispensed with by God in some cases but because Moses did it by divine Revelation it does not follow that the Pope can do it by his Ordinary Autority For the general Judgment of the Learned and particularly for the Vniversities after you have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert See what the Act of Parliament 1º Mariae saith of them What the general judgment of the Learned was has been intimated already What were the Sentiments of the Vniversities will best be learnt from their solemn Determinations After I have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford I am very well satisfied that I have been abus'd and that the rather when I see what is said by Lord Herbert a Lord Herbert p. 352. who on purpose publishes an Original Instrument to confute the lie of Sanders who had call'd the Resolution of our Universities in a sort surreptitious As for the Act of Queen Mary it was the Act of a Queen in her own cause and the 25 Hen. 8.22 c. is as great a proof of the Lawfulness of the Divorce as this is of the Unlawfulness of it What censures were past upon this Act when made may be seen in b Burn. Hist V. 2. p. 254. Dr. Burnet The Act mentioning certain bare and untrue conjectures upon which Archbishop Cranmer founded his sentence of Divorce This Author will have these relate to the consummation of the Marriage of Katherine with Arthur But this is but a bare conjecture of his and very probably untrue For Cranmer c See the Abstract of the grounds of the Divorce Burn. V. 1. Coll. p. 95. thinking the Marriage of a Brother's Wife unlawful and the Essence of all Marriage to consist not in the carnalis copula but in the conjugal pact might upon these Principles conclude the Marriage with Henry unlawful tho' that with Arthur had been prov'd not consummate and therefore need not build on any conjectures concerning the Consummation Tho' had he founded his judgment upon that supposition It if I may so speak with due reverence to an Act of Parliament was neither a bare conjecture nor untrue As for the Hesitancy of the German-Protestant Divines to declare the Divorce lawful I cannot conceive why it is urg'd by this Author who certainly doth not prefer the Judgment of these Protestant-Doctors to the contrary Determination of the Roman-Catholic Universities It has been observ'd upon this Author's writings that he is no great Friend of either Communion of which We have here a very good Confirmation when to prove the illegality of K. Henry's Divorce he declines the Autority of the Roman-Catholic Universities as Mercenary and appeals to the German Divines whom he will have to be of his Opinion Now what can be a greater blemish to the Roman Communion then that those great Bodies which may justly be suppos'd it's greatest Strength should so cheaply barter away their Consciences Or what more Honourable testimony given to the Leaders of the Reformation then that their judgment should be appeal'd to in an instance which makes it appear that their Integrity could not be so far sway'd by the prospect of a common reform'd Interest as their Adversaries are said to have been by the scandalous temptations of a Bribe But this is not a single instance how much more he regards his Hypothesis then the honour of his Communion Thus below § 122 to prove that King Edward's Reformation was not Universal he accuses those Clergy that did comply of Hypocrisy and to shew there were some non-complyers he instances in the frequent Rebellions of the Romanists which he saith would not have been had they not been justified to them by the Clergy The most bitter Adversary to the Church of Rome would wish her such Advocates I have made this Digression to shew you the diversity of Opinions which was in this difficult Matter that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgment and how the several Interests
of several times justified and condemn'd the same thing I am very well convinc'd tho' not from our Author's proof that the Pope stood not alone in his judgment For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion The Pope judg'd for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph when the Dispensation was procur'd from him but here in the 19th he judges against it But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles then his Passions or Interest And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when telling us in the same Page that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinc'd of the Unlawfulness of it but because at the same time he stood much in aw of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine He needed not therefore to have instanc'd in the different Opinions of diverse Men since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinc'd us that the several Interests of several times justifi'd and condemn'd the same thing Now to return to our Matter in hand So that it seems he has digress'd for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to shew that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses The aforesaid Summ of 100000 l spent upon the Vniversities abroad c. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie and I need say no worse of it § 20 The King he saith excepted at the Limitation of Quantum per legem Christi licet in the Title given him by the Clergy and so at last upon renew'd threats this Clause also was procur'd to be omitted See Antiquit. Britannic The Author knew or might have known that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken For Dr. Burnet a Hist V. 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observ'd that King Henry when the Province of York demurr'd upon granting the King the Title of Head as improper in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ Accordingly it is represented as pass'd with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif § 2. Historians He refers us again to Dr. Bailie But the Reader I presume has had enough of him already The excluding the Patriarch is he saith contrary to his 4th Thesis It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope They could find no grounds for the Papal Autority from Scripture Antiquity or Reason but they might perhaps have been convinc'd from our Author's Theses which are an Autority distinct to all those This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon it is because I would not gall him too much Cranmer is said to have divorc'd the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Autority out of his Dominions § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compar'd with p. 144. was pronounc'd in May 1533 and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following Cranmer in the Sentence is call'd Legate of the Apostolic See By this Instance it is plain how implicitely our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology as well as History Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat saith Sanders This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first propos'd c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declar'd it was contrary to the Law of God He induc'd d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it f Ibid. p. 38. He subscrib'd and perswaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it He earnestly prest Fisher to concurr and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops These are some of the favours which Warham shew'd to the Queen's Cause § 23 The Clergy having declar'd the King Supreme Head of the Church it seem'd reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head This is a wild and senseless Calumny the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Autority her Charter she derives immediately from Christ The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave but the execution of which they abridg themselves is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject and therefore necessarily requir'd the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power He cites from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner and allow'd by the Convocation to a Parliamentary Remonstrance But either my a Reform Just in the Historical Tracts Edit Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin or which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations this Author deceives me The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be review'd by 32 Commissioners § 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weigh'd by Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation and it is one of our Author 's pertinent remarks that they did not meddle with what was not reform'd The Reformation of the Canons was a design of which Nothing worse can be said than that it did not take effect If it trouble him that Canons contrary to the King's Prerogative Laws of the Land good of the Subject and Laws of God should be reform'd no Honest man can pity him If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers that has been spoke to by the b Animadv p. 36. Animadverter If by Canons Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation it is out of his wonted pride to outface the Statutes For the c Forasmuch as such Canons Constitutions and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm cannot now be view'd examin'd and determin'd by the King 's Highness and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 c. Act expresly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods and had no
Nor are we quitted from our Obligation to the just Autority of our own Bishops because we do not submit to the Invasions of Forreigner But if by Church-Vniversal and Superior Synods is meant what other People understand by those words it rests to be prov'd that the Reformed plead an Exemption from their Autority § 46 The 46th Paragraph tells us of God's just judgment on Bishop Gardiner for having so zealously abetted the King's Supremacy But the divine Judgments are differently interpreted according to the different Sentiments of the Interpreters Other Writers tell us of severer Judgments inflicted on this Prelate than Deprivation and that for more flagrant crimes then asserting the Regal Supremacy He concludes this Chapter with the resentment of the Clergy for their lost Synodal Autority It is confest that the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical power too high in the times of Popery had now produc'd another of depressing it too much But this was the Infelicity of the Clergy not their Crime The same Autority which tells us the Clergy complain'd of this tells us also that those complainers were the Reformers But this is a truth which is industriously conceal'd and the Citation mangled lest it should confess too much Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est saith he from the Antiquitates Britannicae Clericis multo jam acrius atque vigilantius in divina Veritate quam unquam antea laborantibus say the Antiquities This Omission I believe was not for brevity sake for he doth not use to be so frugal in his Citations But the Reader was to understand by Clerici the Popish Clergy exclusively to all others and the decay of Synodal Autority was to be represented not as the grievance but the fault of the Reformers For this reason it is that we find this Author indecently insulting oven that pious Martyr Bishop Hooper All which I shall observe of it is this that what is here said of this Bishop's Appeal from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil power is applicable to St. Paul's a Acts 25.11 Appeal to Caesar The cause then was Ecclesiastical for They b Acts 25.19 had certain questions against him of their own Superstition And the Bishop might have us'd St. Pauls Plea c Acts 24.14 That after the way which they call'd Heresie so worship'd he the God of his Fathers believeing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets This Chapter more nearly concerning the Reformation it may not be amiss to give a brief Summary of what is perform'd in it It is said that all the Supremacy was confirm'd to Edward the 6th which was conceded to Henry the 8th But no reason is given why it should have been diminish'd that some Statutes against Heretics were repeal'd but this repeal not shewn to be without good reason or good Autority that all Jurisdiction Spiritual is said to be deriv'd from the Prince but this Expression taken in a due Sense may be justifyed and if it could not the Act being void we are under no Obligation to defend it that the Bishops are authoriz'd by Virtue of an Act of Parliament to excommunicate but this Interpretation is forc'd upon the Statute and the words taken even in this Sence will not bear the Stress which is laid upon them that 32 Commissioners were appointed to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical and 6 Prelates with 6 others to reform the Ordinal but nothing said to shew that these did not want a Reformation or that the Persons commission'd were not qualified for such a trust and these two urg'd as the mere effects of Parliamentary Supremacy which were the Synodical request of the Clergy that an Oath of Supremacy was impos'd on Persons entring into Holy Orders but this Oath invented by Papists and in that part which gives Offence since alter'd that an Hypothetical Submission of Bonner was not accepted but this such a Submission as that Bishop recanted That the consent of the Clergy was once not urg'd as necessary to make the Regal Injunctions valid But no reason assign'd why it should have been That the Clergy complain'd of their lost Synodal Autority But these the Reformers who yet are accus'd of being no Friends to it That Bishop Hooper appeal'd to the Civil power But so also did St. Paul The title of this Chapter least the Contents may have made the Reader forget it was The Supremacy claim'd by King Edward the 6th A Reply to Chapter the 5th WE are come now to Q. Mary's Reign the fatal Revolutions of which We would willingly forget did not the unseasonable importunity of these Men refresh our memories Our Author had acted the part of a skilful Painter had he cast a veil over this piece of his History for the Calamities of this Reign tend little to the Honour of that Religion and are never properly insisted on but by those who write Invectives against Popery But those Reflections which create horror in other men's breasts seem to have a different Effect on this Writer for in his entrance upon this Reign it is easie to discover such a new Warmth and Vigor in his Expressions as betray him to be in a more then ordinary rapture All that had been done in the two former Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy were now by an equal Autority of Prince Clergy and State revers'd repeal'd ejected His Discourse here has put on a new air and like the Orator in his triumphs over exil'd Cataline he prosecutes declining Heresie with an abiit excessit evasit But here to moderate his Acclamations let me tell him that this Prince who thus reverses repeals and ejects was the same a Burn. V. 2. p 237. that gave the Suffolk men full assurance that she would never make any Innovations or changes in Religion The same that made an open Declaration in Council b Bur. V. 2. p. 245. that though her own Conscience was staid in matters of Religion yet she was resolv'd not to compel or restrain others So that this after repealing reflects severely on those Guides who had the Government of her Conscience and those Principles by which She acted Lay-Supremacy was indeed at last ejected by her but not till the other parts of the Reformation were reverst by it's Influence If sending out Injunctions in matters Ecclesiastical using the Title of Head of the Church convoking Synods ejecting Bishops by Commission prohibiting some Preachers licensing others inhibiting the Pope's Legate to come into the Kingdom if these I say are admitted to be signs of a Lay-Supremacy it must be confest that Q. Mary was such a Supreme It is not therefore Regal Supremacy as such but as countenancing the Reformation which these men condemn Those Powers which in the former Chapter were Invasions of the Church's right do in this easily escape our Author's Censure We are told now of the power of the Prince when Protestantism is to be defac'd who in the establishment
be past by them It was not the Doctrine of the Catechism or Articles which was here question'd but the false ascription of the Catechism to the Synod Now the Articles being undeniably genuine they content themselves only to condemn the Doctrine of them but the Catechism being suppos'd illegitimate they subscribe both against it's Doctrine and Autority Nor could Philpot have pleaded as our Author would have had him that the Synod's composing the Articles justified the Act of the Delegates composing the Catechism since this might indeed warrant the Doctrine of the Catechism but not the entitling it to the Synod He saith all the Historians that he hath seen are silent concerning these Articles In this dispute concerning the Articles Dr. Heylin is twice mention'd and two several Books of his refer'd to in those very pages where he mentions these Articles In his a Heylin's Hist p. 121. History He thinks them debated and concluded on by a Grand Committee on whom the Convocation had devolv'd their power and esteems it not improbable that these Articles being debated and agreed upon by the said Committee might also pass the Vote of the whole Convocation though we find nothing to that purpose in the Acts thereof which either have been lost or never were registred I add or being once Registred were expung'd In his Reformation justified a Ref Justif § 4. He positively affirms that the Clergy in Synod 1552. did compose and agree upon a book of Articles Neither therefore is Dr. Heylin silent herein nor is he one of the Historians which this Author never saw Dr. Burnet is another Historian whom either this Editor had seen or ought not to have publish'd this Relation till he had first consulted him He peremptorily affirms b Bur. V 2. p. 195. that in the Year 1552. the Convocation agreed to the Articles of Religion that were prepar'd the year before But our Author has still another Objection in reserve that the Arch-Bishop Cranmer to whom it would have been an excellent Defence to have shew'd these Articles to have been subscrib'd by a full Synod yet pleaded no such thing That Reverend Martyr pleaded that the Opinions which he maintain'd were the Doctrines of the Scripture and Primitive Church that the rejection of the Pope's Supremacy the fundamental Heresie of which he was accus'd was the Unanimous Act of the whole English Clergy and Nation and which his very Judges had solemnly sworn to Now if this Plea could avail nothing in his Defence it must have been a weak Plea to have insisted on Articles past in a Synod call'd by himself and over which he by reason of his Archiepiscopal Autority had great Influence This dispute is concluded with a shrewd Remark which our Author raises from a passage of Dr. Heylin The Dr. observes that this Book of Articles was not confirm'd by any Act of Parliament whence he concludes that the Reform'd Religion cannot be call'd a Parliament Religion Hence this Author gathers that neither was it a Synodal Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating the Synods in all other transactions of the Reformation Now tho' there is ground for the Drs. observation because there is never an Act which formally gives Sanction to these Articles yet there is in one of those very Acts cited from the Doctor in this Pamphlet that which quite overthrows our Author's Conclusion For in the Act for Legitimating Marriages of Priests it is said that the untrue Slanderous report of Holy Matrimony did redound to the High dishonour of the Learned Clergy of this Realm who have determin'd the same to be most Lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by common Assent as by the Subscription of their Hands Which words plainly refer to the 31st of these Articles and are an Authoritative Testimony that they are the genuine Act of the Synod and had I doubt not been expung'd had the Commission of rasure extended to the Statute-Book I have insisted the longer on this particular because it is a matter of some moment and because the Author has here us'd more then ordinary Artifice I have not had the benefit of any Registers or Manuscripts nor am I skill'd in these niceties of History What has been said sufficiently overthrows all his Cavils but the Curious and the Learned are able to give a more Authentic and Solid account of this matter A Reply to Chapter the 11th THat the Reformation was restor'd by Q. Elizabeth after the extirpation of it by Q. Mary might have been said in fewer lines than this Author is pleas'd to use Paragraphs That some things were at first reduc'd without Synodal Autority I confess and that the Reformation had it's last settlement by a Synod he cannot deny The Act of the first Popish Convocation I esteem illegal because the Q. had sent and requir'd them under the pain of a Premunire not to make Canons The Canonicalness of Q. Mary's Clergy here acting depends upon his former Proofs which were not altogether Demonstrative But let their Autority be suppos'd just yet these Constitutions were repeal'd by a later Synod whose Autority must be conceded equal and therefore their Act as being the last Autoritative The stress therefore of the Controversy lies in this whether Q. Elizabeth's new Bishops were lawfully introduc'd and this depends upon the legality of the ejection of the Old The Cause of their ejection is confest to be their denial of the Oath of Supremacy and is just or unjust according as that Oath was lawful or unlawful Our Author therefore sets himself to examine that Oath where he first puts his own Exposition upon it and then attacqs it as so expounded Neither Q. Elizabeth's explication of her own Sense nor the Church's Exposition in her Articles favour his Construction Those who take this Oath are not perswaded that they abjure the Autority of a General Council or the Jurisdiction of their own National Clergy But if we accept it in that Sense which he is pleas'd to impose upon it Yet still the Strength of his Arguments depends on such Assertions as are to be supported by his four first part of Church-Government We must therefore wait the Edition of those before We can be satisfied of the Strength of these But if we may make an estimate of future performances from past there is no reason to expect any thing formidable from that Quarter For the only business of our Modern Controvertists is to rally up those scatter'd forces which have long since quitted the field to our Forefathers This Oath of Supremacy has exercis'd the Pens of the greatest Champions of both Churches and there is not a shadow of an Argument here brought against it but what has been baffled when manag'd with better skill and more Learning than this Author is Master of The Regal Supremacy in Opposition to the Papal has been asserted by our Kings James the first and Charles the first