is the assisting of the Church in her business not the abridging of her in her power The Second Thesis That the Clergy cannot alienate or make over and give away to the Secular Governor §. 4 Thes 2. or to his Ministers and Delegates any authority or office which they have received and been charged with by Christ with a Command to execute the same to the end of the world and with a threat to become answerable to God for any miscarriage of the people by their default therein From which it follows that the Clergy's doing of either of these Two things First The binding themselves for ever to any Secular Governor never to make or never to teach abroad and publish to the people his Subjects any judgment or decision of theirs made in matters of Faith and Gods Worship or made for reforming some Error or Heresy or other abuse in Gods Service without the consent of such Governor first obtained thereto which Governor as I said tho Christian and a Believer yet may be a Sectarist an Heretick c. 2. Or Secondly which is yet worse the authorizing of the Secular Governor or of those whom he shall please to choose and nominate who will be sure to name those rather of his own Sect to determine and decide and promulge such Spiritual matters for the Clergy and in their stead So that now not only the Clergy cannot do such things without such Secular Governor but also such Governor may do those things without the Clergy I say these two are unlawful as being contrary to the duties of the Clergy said above Thesis the First to be committed to them by Christ The Third Thesis §. 5. Thes 3. That the Secular Prince cannot depose or eject front the exercise of their office in his Dominions any of the Clergy neither absolutely without any cause pretended as he may remove those Officers and Ministers under him who hold their places only durante beneplacite Nor for a cause alledged if it be such as this namely for their not obeying the decisions which he or his civil Council shall make in Spiritual matters or for their transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons 2 nor can introduce others into the places of the ejected without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or of their Ecclesiastical Superiors which consent if he obtain I reckon not this deposition c. to be his Act but theirs And here note that what is said of other Clergy may be said likewise of the Patriarch for any authority in such Princes Dominions which he stands possessed of by such Ecclesiastical Canons as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the civil Government Touching which matter see Church Gov. 1. Par. § 38. c. § 6 First The Prince cannot eject them 1. 1. Neither without giving any cause thereof because they hold not these their Offices from the Prince much less from him only during pleasure but they receive them by Solemn Ordination from their Predecessors in this Ministery the Substitutes of the Lord Christ even this Office among the rest to oversee instruct and use Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in making or publishing Ecclesiastical Laws and imposing censures over the flock of Christ in what Princes Dominions soever or in whatsoever Province or Diocess thereof as every one by his Ecclesiastical Superiors is appointed as appears by their equally exercising such Office in the three first Centuries in all Dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial Governments the Twelve Apostles being said at the first to have allotted to themselves several Circuits after the same manner even when the Supreme Power-civil not only licenced not but opposed and prohibited them to do it on pain of death Of which matter see Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church 1 chap. Seeing the Church saith he subsisted Three Hundred years before any State professed Christianity whatsoever right it used during that time manifestly therefore it ought still to use and enjoy this being the most pertinent evidence to shew the bounds of it i. e. of such rights independent on any Temporal Governor See him 4. c. p. 169. And the Apostles themselves were they who first set up this Church Government in Civil States And St. Paul made Titus Superintendent of Creet and Timothy of Ephesus for Spiritual Affairs without the Secular Governors leave * who were in these places to ordain others to preserve for ever the Doctrines and Discipline delivered to them For this cause saith Paul to Titus 1. chap. 5. ver left I thee in Creet that thou shouldest set in order the things that are left undone and ordain Presbyters in every City as I had appointed thee Which ordaining of others signifieth also Institution in the charge or cure whereto they ministred as Bishop Carleton confesseth Jurisdict Regal Episcopal 4. chap. pag. 40. Again * Who were in these places to receive Accusations hear Witnesses which cannot be without appointed Assemblies and Meetings silence false Teachers excommunicate Offenders See Tit. 1.11 Rev. 2.20 1. Tim. 1.3.5.19 Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses Now he saith the same Author pag. 42. that is appointed to hear Accusations and to receive the testimonies of witnesses is seated in a place of judgment with Jurisdiction See more of this in Succes Clergy § 4. and this they did when the Temporal Governors of those places licenced them not yea persecuted them So Athanasius ejected by Constantius his Emperor from the charge which the Church had committed to him of Alexandria and Paulus from Constantinople were nevertheless accounted still the true Bishops of those Sees Princes indeed may deprive the Clergy at pleasure or according as Covenants made of what they bestow on them Houses Lands Priviledges Jurisdictions Lordships Temporal but the Offices abovenamed they bestow not 2. Again as Princes may not depose them at pleasure so neither for any cause which concerns things Spiritual without the Clergy's consent For it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam as in personam and the Prince as hath been mentioned in the first Thesis hath no authority to judge such causes meerly Spiritual To this may be added that neither Heathen nor Heretical Prince can justly prohibit totally all that Clergy whom the Church declares Orthodox from entring into or from preaching and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions And if he put such to death for disobeying this his Command when as it is contrary to Gods and Christs who sendeth them to all Nations in effect he puts them to death for obeying Gods Command and they dye Martyrs As also the Primitive Martyrs were put to death for not obeying the Emperors Laws concerning matters of their Religion § 7 Second 2. As the Prince cannot thus eject or depose Clergy so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceased without
Protestant Religion passed as an Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament when all the Bishops therein present opposed it See Camden's An. 1. Eliz. And 1. Eliz. 1. c.. § 13 The Seventh Thesis That Thesis 7th tho Secular Princes were allowed to have a decisive power in some matters of Faith such as are no way formerly determined which is contrary to the First and Second Thesis yet for such points as have been formerly determined on any side here since a National Synod may not define any such thing contrary to former superior Councils much less may any Secular person define any such things contrary to those Councils or also contrary to a National Synod § 14 The Eighth Thesis That Thesis 8th as touching Divine truths and matters of Faith spoken of hitherto so now for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution and not Divine Command Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any new Canons concerning the Government and Discipline of the Church contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them at least so many of these as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his civil Government nor the National Synod can shew some way more prejudicial to their particular Church than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches See this Thesis proved in Chur. Gov. 2. Part. § 63. And 3. Part. § 13. n. 3. And § 27. n. 2. § 15 These Theses being set down whereby to judge of the Regularity of a Reformation let us now view the carriage thereof here in England in the time of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and how far it hath deviated from them Touching which Reformation I would desire you to read together with these â—ay Observations what is related in defence thereof by Dr. Hammond Schism 7. c. Dr. Fern in Considerations touching the Reformed Church 2. and 9. Chap. And Dr. Heylin's Treatise called the Reformation of the Church of England Justified lest I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable in this matter And here §. 16. 1. Three Heads of this Discourse confining my Discourse to Three Heads I will first give you an account how the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's days were at the beginning induced to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy in Spiritual matters after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly and how far only at first they seem to have allowed it I say after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly Because some Supremacy namely this of assembling a Synod of the Clergy upon Temporal punishments in case of Disobedience by their Writs the ancient form of which see in Dr. Heylin p. 4 when any urgent occasions required as likewise of enjoyning to all their Subjects as well Clergy as others upon Temporal Penalties the observance of the Decrees and Constitutions of such Synods or of any other former lawful Councils such as the Clergy shall acknowledge to have been the Decrees thereof these Supremacies I say the Princes of this Land before Henry the Eighth had and exercised neither was any such Supremacy usurped or interrupted by the Pope Neither do the Roman Doctors deny such an external coactive Jurisdiction of Princes in Spiritual Affairs 1. as to bind their Clergy upon Temporal Mulcts to meet together in Council when the same Princes shall think it necessary the Ecclesiasticks being their Subjects as well as Christs Clergy and on this account bound to obey them as well as their Spiritual Governors on the other and there being often good cause of their assembling in order to the peace and welfare of the civil State committed to the Princes care because this dependeth much on the right Government of the Church committed to theirs Provided only that these Assemblies be so timed and disposed by the Prince as that the authority which our Saviour hath committed to the Church concerning the assembling of the same persons be no way disturbed thereby For doubtless when both at the same time cannot be done their Service to the Church is to be preferred before that to the State 2. as to bind their Subjects upon External and Temporal Mulcts and Punishments to observe the Laws and Determinations of the Church But First that the Governors of the Church have also power upon Ecclesiastical Censures to assemble a Synod of Clergy when there seems need tho the Prince oppose it this indeed those Doctors affirm And secondly whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Prince's coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of he Church this they bring in question But then as his last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors so it is opposed by others of them 2. We will consider what manner of Supremacy was afterward by little and little either challenged by the Prince or by the Clergy or Parliament given unto him as his right 3. And Thirdly how according to this their conceived right those Three Princes acted CHAP. II. The Inducement of the English Clergy to acknowledge a Regal Supremacy in Spirituals I. Head § 17 FOR the First Henry the Eighth whether because scrupulous in Conscience How the Engl. Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals occasioned by his Daughter Mary's being offered in Marriage first to the Emperor Charles the Fifth and then to Francis King of France and by both refused as is said upon this account because they doubted of the lawfulness of Henry ' s Marriage with her Mother or whether because much enamoured on another Lady Anne Bullen Daughter to the Treasurer of his Houshold and an Attendant on the Queen yet between whom and him it is said that the King was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7 c. never after repealed plainly declared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the Seventh Etiamsi illa tibi alià s secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis aut primo affinitatis gradu etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit do give some suspicion Had a great desire after Twenty years cohabitation to be divorced from Queen Katherine because having been formerly his Brother's Wife Cardinal Wolsey being made the Bishops Legate together with Cardinal Campegius for the hearing and determining this matter tho at first he much corresponded with the King's Inclinations having designed his Matching with the King of France his Sister as is thought from some Self-interests yet when
Saying p. 92. If thus the Bishop will have Secular Princes to have nothing to do in the making or hindring any Decrees or Laws of the Church-men in matters meerly Spiritual but only to have such a sole dominion over the Secular Sword as that none can use it but he or by his leave in the execution of such Laws all is well but then the former-quoted Statutes of Henry the Eighth shew much more Power challenged than the Bishop alloweth This in Answer to the Bishop Secondly If it be further said here touching that particular Statute of much concernment 26. Hen. 8.1 c. quoted before § 26 and § 25. Namely §. 35. n. 4. 1 That the King shall have full power from time to time to visit repress reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spritual Authority c lawfully may be reformed c. See §. 25. If it be said here that the King hath only this power therein ascribed to him to redress and reform the Errors and Heresies which are declared such by the Church by former Councils or by the Synods of his Clergy but that he hath no power given him to judge or declare what is Error or Heresy 1. First thus then he hath not all the power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction may be exercised as it follows in that Act because there is a Spiritual Authority also that may declare new Errors and Heresies or that may reform such Errors as have not been by Synods formerly declared such and it seems this He hath not Secondly Thus the Clause ending the Act any Custome Forreign Laws Prescription c notwithstanding is utterly useless because no Forreign Laws or Prescriptions deny this Authority to Kings to reform Errors c in their Dominions so that they still confine themselves to the precedent Judgments of the Church Thirdly In the Act fore-quoted 25. Hen. 8.19 c. 'T is granted to his Highness and Thirty Two Commissioners elected by him to annul and make invalid what former Synodal Canons they think not to stand with the Laws of God therefore they have power to judge which Canons are such and to reform them i. e to teach and declare the contrary truths to them when thought by them Errors against the judgment of former Synods and without the judgment of a new Synod and what is this but to judge and pronounce de novo what is Error and Heresy Enormity Abuse c Fourthly Lastly how comes the King or his Commissioners to be made the ultimate judge See before § 31.25 Hen. 8.19 c. in all Appeals touching Divine matters if he or they cannot judge in these what is Error Since some Causes and Controversies may haply come before him not determined by former Councils And for the Errors he reforms if he is still to follow the judgment of his Clergy what are such Errors how are there in these things Appeals admitted to him from the judgments of his Clergy § 36 This said to remove the mis-interpretation of that Act I will add to these Acts of Parliament which I have been reciting to you from § 26. those words in the Kings last Speech which he made in Parliament not long before his death reprehending his Subjects for their great dissension in Opinion and Doctrine If you know surely saith he that a Bishop or Preacher erreth or teacheth perverse Doctrine Lord. Herb. Hist p. 536. come and declare it to some of our Council or to us to whom is committed by God the high authority to reform and order such causes and behaviours and be not Judges your selves of your fantastical Opinions and vain Expositions Here making his Council or himself Judge of the Bishops Doctrines And those words in King Henry the Eighth's Proclamation 1543. made for the eating of White-Meats Milk Butter Eggs heese in Lent where he saith That the meer positive Laws of the Church may be upon considerations and grounds altered and dispensed with by the publick authority of Kings and Princes In Fox pag. 1104. whensoever they shall perceive the same to tend to the hurt and damage of their people Vnless perhaps he restrain damage here to Civil Affairs Contrary to the Eighth Thesis And those words in Cromwell's Speech when he presided as the Kings Vicar-General over the Clergy assembled to state something in Controversies of Faith then agitated betwixt the Roman Church and Lutherans who told them That His Majesty would not suffer the Scripture to be wrested and defaced by any Glosses Fox p. 1078. any Papistical Laws or by any Authority of Doctors or Councils By which if this be meant that we are not obliged to embrace the Doctrine of Scriptures according to those Determinations and Expositions which lawful Councils have made of them it is contrary to the Fourth and Seventh Thesis and overthrows the Government of the Church See the same thing said on the Kings behalf by the Bishop of Hereford against other Bishops urging the Doctors of the Church Fox p. 1079. I will conclude with what Bishop Carleton in Jurisdict Regal and Episcopal Epist dedicat § 37 And Calvin upon those Words in Amos 7.13 Prophecy not any more at Bethel for it is the Kings Court say of these times Bishop Carleton relateth out of Calvin That Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester being at Ratisbon in Germany upon the Kings Affairs and there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that Title Supreme Head of the Church given to Henry the Eighth taught that the King had such a power that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine and abolish old As Namely ' That the King might forbid the Marriage of Priests and might take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in such things might appoint what he list And there likewise Bishop Carleton confesseth That when Henry the Eighth took this Title of Supreme Head c tho the sounder and more judicious part of the Church then understood the words of that Title so as that no offence might justly rise by it I suppose he means in that sense as himself takes it which is For the King to have a Jurisdiction Coactive in External Courts binding and compelling men by force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments to what the â—hurch in Spiritual matters defines For this Bishop saith that the Church is the only Judge of such matters See before p. 4. and in his whole Book written purposely on this Subject I do not find that he gives the King any Coactive Authority in Spiritual matters against any definition of the Church Yet saith he they that were suddenly brought from their old Opinions of Popery not to the love of the Truth but to the observance of the Kings Religion received a gross and impure sense of these words But this gross sense is such as Bishop Gardiner
as any one in the Vindication of the Churches rights and Yet He tells us q Epilog Pag. 391. that No-Man will refuse Christian Princes the Interest of protecting the Church against all such Acts as may prove praejudicial to the common Faith He holds as this Writer with great concern r Church Government pag. 390. observes that the Secular power may restore any law which Christ or his Apostles have ordained not only against a Major part but all the Clergy and Governours of the Church and may for a Paenalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho' they also be establish'd by another Law Apostolical Thus that considerative man who held not the Pope to be Antichrist or the Hierarchy of the Church to be followers of Antichrist ſ Church Government pag. 391. Bishop Taylour his next Author doth with the rest assert that the Episcopal Office has some powers annex'd to it independent on the Regal But then he farther lays down these Rules t Ductor Dub. l. 3. c. 3. r. 4. That the Supreme Civil-power is also Supreme Governour over all Persons and in all Causes u Ibid. r. 5. Hath a Legislative power in Affairs of Religion and the Church x Ibid. r. 7. Hath Jurisdiction in causes not only Ecclesiastical but also Internal and Spiritual y Ibid. r. 7. n. 9. Hath autority to convene and dissolve all Synods Ecclesiastical z Ibid. r. 8. Is indeed to govern in Causes Ecclesiastical by the means and measure of Christ's Institutions i. e. by the Assistance and Ministry of Ecclesiastical Persons a Ibid. r. 8. n. 6. but that there may happen a case in which Princes may and must refuse to confirm the Synodical decrees Sentences and Judgments of Ecclesiastics b Ibid. l. 3. c. 4. r. 8. That Censures Ecclesiastical are to be inflicted by the consent and concurrence of the Supreme Civil power The next Author cited is the Learned Primate Bramhal and We have here reason to wonder that one Who praetends to have been conversant in his Writings dares appear in the Vindication of a Cause which the Learned Author has so longe since so shamefully defeated As for the right of Sovereign Princes This Arch-Bishop will tell c Bp. Br. Works Tom. 1. p. 88. him That to affirm that Sovereign Princes cannot make Ecclesiastical Constitutions under a Civil pain or that they cannot especially with the advice and concurrence of their Clergy assembled in a National Synod reform errors and abuses and remedy Incroachments and Usurpations in Faith or Discipline is contrary to the sense and practise of all Antiquity and as for matter of Fact He will instruct him d Ibid. p. 76. that our Kings from time to time call'd Councils made Ecclesiastical Laws punish'd Ecclesiastical Persons saw that they did their duties in their calling c. From this Bishop's acknowledgment that the Bishops are the proper Judges of the Canon this Author that He may according to the Language of a * Educ p. 98. modern Pen as well waken the Taciturn with Quaestions as silence the Loquacious with baffling fallacies takes Occasion briskly to ask whether this Bishop doth not mean here that the Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the King's Dominions and use Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Autority But see saith He the Bishops depriv'd of the former power in the Reformation To which I answer that the power of which they were depriv'd in the Reformation was only of such an executing the Canons as carried with it pecuniary and corporal Punishments and this power the Bishop has told him they could not Exercise by their own Autority And here it were to be wish'd that our Author in reading this Bishop's Works had made use of his advice e Ibid. p. 156. To cite Authors fully and faithfully not by halves without adding to or new moulding their Autorities according to Fancy or Interest The next Advocate against Regal Supremacy is King Charles the First But if we may take a draught of that Blessed Martyr's Sentiments from his own Portraiture f E I K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adv. To the Pr. of Wales He did not think his Autority confin'd to Civil Affairs but that the true glory of Princes consists as well in advancing Gods Glory in the maintenance of true Religion and the Churches good as in the Dispensation of Civil power with Justice and Honour to the publick Peace g Ibid. cap. 17. He thought himself as King intrusted by God and the Laws with the good both of Church and State and saw no reason why he should give up or weaken by any change that power and Influence which in right and reason He ought to have over both He thought himself oblig'd to preserve the Episcopal Government in its right Constitution not because his Bishops told him so but because his Judgment was fully satisfied that it had of all other the best Scripture grounds and also the constant practice of Christian Churches He was no Friend of implicit Obedience but after he has told the Prince h Adv. to the Pr. of Wales that the best Profession of Religion is that of the Church of England adds I would have your own Judgment and reason now seal to that Sacred Bond which Education hath written that it may be judiciously your own Religion and not other Mens Custom or Tradition which you profess He did not give that glorious Testimony to the Religion established in the Church of England that it was the best in the World not only in the community as Christian but also in the special Notion as Reformed and for this reason requuired and intreated the Prince as his Father and his King that he would never suffer his Heart to receive the least check against or disaffection from it till he had first tried it and after much search and many disputes thus concluded These are the Sentiments of our Authors in which if I have been over-long the Reader will excuse me that I choose rather to intermix something useful from these great Pens then to entertain him altogether with the Paralogisms and prevarications of this Writer There is nothing that remains considerable under this first Thesis but his Sub-sumption that whatever powers belong'd to the Church in times of persecution and before Emperours had embrac'd Christianity are and must still be allowed to belong to her in Christian States Which I conceive not altogether so Necessary that it must be allowed and I am sure by our Authors it is not As for Convening of Councils the power of greatest concern Bishop i Serm. of the right of Assemblies Andrews to this Quaestion What say you to the 300 Years before Constantine How went Assemblies then Who call'd them all that while returns this Answer Truly as the people of the Jews did before in Aegypt under the tyranny of Pharaoh They were
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
Church-Government PART V. A RELATION OF THE English Reformation AND The lawfulness thereof examined by the THESES deliver'd in the Four former Parts Printed at OXFORD 1687. The CONTENTS CHAP. I. EIGHT Theses pre-posed whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation § 1. CHAP. II. Three Heads of this Discourse I. 1. Head How the English Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals § 17. And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it § 23. CHAP. III. II. 2. Head Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince § 26. n. 2. 1. In the times of Henry the Eighth CHAP. IV. 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth § 38. CHAP. V. The former Supremacy disclaimed by Queen Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Pope's Supremacy re-acknowledged § 48. And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church And the Church-doctrine under King Edward condemned § 51. That Queen Maries Clergy was a lawful Clergy That the Bishops in King Edward's days were not lawfully ejected § 54. Neither as to the Authority ejecting them Nor as to the Cause That the Bishops deprived in Queen Mary's days were lawfully ejected Both as to the Cause And as to the Judge § 64. Where Concerning the burning of those who in Queen Mary's days were by the Church condemned of Heresy § 65. And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places CHAP. VI. 3. In the times of Queen Elizabeth That as ample a Supremacy was claimed and by Parliament conferred on her as on King Henry or Edward § 70. Where Concerning certain qualifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed § 72. And the Replyes to them But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy § 77. CHAP. VII III. 3. Head How according to such Supremacy assumed these three Princes acted in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 78. 1. The Actings of Henry the Eighth in Ecclesiastical Affairs In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastical Laws and compiling a new body of them In putting forth a model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Six Articles § 81. Where Concerning the complaints made by Protestants of his abuse of the Supremacy In the consecrating and confirming of Bishops and Metropolitans § 86. In the putting down of Monasteries c. § 87. The pretences thereof § 89. Reflections upon these pretences § 93. In the dispensing with the former Church Canons concerning Marriages Fasts Holy days c. § 99. In the publishing and afterward prohibiting of the Scriptures in a vulgar tongue § 101. CHAP. VIII 2. The Actings of King Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 104. 1. Set down first more generally In putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Homilies sending Commissions thro the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy c. In the prohibition of Preaching till he had setled Religion The Defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings in matters of Religion The Reply thereto § 111. Where Concerning the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations § 119. CHAP. IX 2. More particularly In sending certain Doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Winchester In repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Henry the Eighth's time § 137. In seizing on Religious Houses and some Bishops Lands and denying the lawfulness of Monastick Vows In defacing Images In enjoyning Administration of the Communion in both kinds § 142. In suppressing the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals § 143. In setting up new Forms Of celebrating the Communion § 144. Of Ordination § 145. Of Common-Prayer § 146. Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass § 147. Where 1. Concerning the alterations of the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward's in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist 148. 2. Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer-Book in relation to the same Sacrifice § 149. 3. Concerning the reduction of some things touching this matter in the new Common-Prayer-Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of King Edward § 150. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis § 151. And the celebration of the Eucharist prohibited when none other to communicate with the Priest § 152. And Invocation of Saints expunged out of the Litanies § 154. And the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession relaxed § 155. CHAP. X. In setting forth a second Form of Common-Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate § 157. In which second Book are rectified and removed many things which gave offence in the former § 158. Among the rest Prayer for the Dead and several expressions that seemed to inferr the Real or Corporal Presence in the Eucharist § 160. Where Concerning the reduction of some things touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to King Edward's first Form § 161. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis In the abrogation of several Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts Celibacy of the Clergy c Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion different from the former doctrines of the Church § 165. Where Whether these Articles were passed by any Synod CHAP. XI 3. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical matters § 170. All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and King Edward's days being reversed by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days Her calling of a Synod which declareth against the Reformation A Disputation between the Bishops and the Râ—â—â—â—med Divines § 177. The Regal Supremacy and all that King Edward had done in the Reformation now re-established by the Qu. and Parliament § 179. But not by the Clergy The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy § 180. The unlawfulness of this Ejection Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend § 181. How far not § 183. That Submission to the Regal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops § 184. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs how far it is to be acknowledged § 185. That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops § 186. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be lawfully ejected on any other ground as would render the Protestant Bishops a major part § 187. CHAP. XII Concerning the defects of the Queen's Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days § 190. n. 1. Concerning the defects of the new Bishops ordained in Qu. Elizabeth's days § 191. Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Canons § 193. Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination § 194. CHAP. XIII Digression concerning The Opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of Doctrine against the major part of the Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it 196. Opinion Of Dr. Field § 197. Of Mr. Mason § 199.
prejudicial to the Temporal and Civil Rights and Emoluments and Priviledges of the Prince and of his Subjects that the Mitre might not encroach upon the Crown both which have their certain limits of Jurisdiction and may do wrong one to the other Such authority as this then in Church-matters you may find exercised by former Princes of England or perhaps some other power used by them against the Church and defended by the common Lawyers of those days more than is justifiable But on the other side I think you will not find either assumed by the Prince or allowed to him by any Statutes before the times of Henry the Eighth such Powers in Ecclesiastical matters as some of these following Namely A Power to correct and reform all Errors and Heresies in Religion by such persons as the Prince shall appoint to judge thereof half of them being Laicks repealing also the former course of tryal of them by the ordinary Church-Magistrates as you may see below § 39. A Power to make and reverse Ecclesiastical Laws alter the Church Liturgies publick Forms of administring the Sacraments Ordinals c without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or any lawful Church Authority A Power to hinder and prohibits the Clergy that they may correct or reform any such Heresies or may make or publish any such Ecclesiastical Decrees or Laws within the Kings Dominions without his consent thereto first obtained Without his Consent not to examine whether such their Constitutions might be any way prejudicial to the State Temporal for this were but meet and just but whether such be agreeable or repugnant to Gods Word and dangerous to the Peoples Salvation and Spiritual State A Power thus in all Causes Ecclesiastical Licences Faculties Dispensations to be the final Judge by himself or by his Court of Chancery or by some other Deputies whom he pleaseth to choose to whom Appeal may be made concerning what is agreeable or what repugnant to the Holy Scripture A Power to restrain all Forreign Appeals and Censures from thence not only in all Cases mixt with the Interests of the Temporal Government but also in all matters meerly Spiritual and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance A Power to prohibit or reverse any Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Councils Patriarchal or General tho in things wherein Temporal Regalities or Prerogatives or the Temporal safety and peace of the people is not concerned but as I said upon pretence of their being conceived to contain something repugnant to Gods Law A Power to hinder that no Ecclesiastical Governors may call any Synod or Assembly within his Dominions nor exercise in foro externo any Ecclesiastical Censures without his consent A Power to command such persons to be induced and instituted in Ecclesiastical Benefices and Dignities whom the lawful Ecclesiastical Power refuseth as Unorthodox or Uncanonical See Schism Guardâ—d p. 61.161 Vindic. p. 268. Lastly A Coactive Power in foro externo so far extended as that it leaves for the Clergy as independently belonging to them only an Internal Power or Jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience or an Habitual Power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments exercising the power of the Keys in foro conscientiae ordaining and degrading Ecclesiasticks but without any Liberty actually or lawfully to exercise the same in any Princes Dominions if he denyeth it without any Power allowed to the Clergy to summon Offenders in foro externo and to punish them with the Spiritual Sword either for their convicted crimes or for non-appearance and this whether Secular Princes either favour or oppose without any Power to call or keep any publick Assemblies for publick Worship for decision of Controversies in Religion for making Church Laws i. e such as prejudice no Temporal Rights and publishing and imposing the same Determinations and Canons upon Ecclesiastical Censures upon the Church's Subjects in the several Dominions of Princes whether they consent or resist Without any Power of their electing and ordaining future Clergy in the several Dominions of Princes Christian as well as others whenever these Princes shall propose or assent to the admission of no such persons as they I mean the lawful Church Authority shall judge Orthodox and capable Such Powers are not mentioned at least clearly by Bishop Bramhal to belong to the Clergy but seem to be swallowed in the Coactive Power of the Prince Such Powers were in the possession of the Church independently on Princes for the first Three Hundred Years Such Powers being translated to the Secular Governors when Christian do arm them when Christians Heretical to change and overturn the Church in their Dominions as they please whilst the Clergy ought not to contradict Such Powers are said to belong to the Prince since the Reformation and indeed without these the Reformation could not well have been effected and I think are given to them in the fore-quoted Statutes If these Powers are said not to belong to these Princes let them name which of these are not But Lastly such Powers cannot be shewed to have been given or been due to our Kings by the former Laws unless we will believe that the Laws of the Land then contradicted that Obedience which those Princes yielded to the Church or that those Princes even when most fallen out with the Church would voluntarily forego so many of their rights Thus much to the first Defence used by Bishop Bramh. §. 35. n. 3. That Henry the Eighth's Statutes were only declarative of the former Laws For the second thing said by him That King Henry the Eighth by these Statutes claimed only an External Coactive Power in Causes Ecclesiastical in foro contentioso if by External Coactive Power he meaneth the exercising of all those Powers which I have but now named with Coaction and the Material Sword then the Secular Prince seems to assume and exercise several of those Powers which are only the Churches rights But if by Coactive Power he meaneth only the Kings calling of the Clergy together to consult of Church Affairs and his assisting with the Secular Sword their Constitutions and Decrees and making their Laws his own by Temporal Mulcts and Penalties and compelling particular Clergy as well as Laity to do that which the Church declares to be their duty compelling I say with outward force for herein the Bishop seemeth to place the Kings Power in Spiritual matters See Schism Guarded p. 93. How can the Pope saith he pretend to any Coactive power in England where the Power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King And p. 92. The Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons c But they had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his Will the uttermost they could do was to separate him from their Communion And p. 166 Who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison and punish them for not appearing without his leave Likewise p. 168. and compare them with his former
warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote p. 73. especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned men of the Church to be the law of Christ shall he not preform his known duty till the vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it And here I suppose Dr. Fern will grant that the Prince is bound also to establish Christ's Law in which he is accountable if he do amiss 9. c. § 21. whenever it should happen to be evidenced to him by any other tho none of or contrary to the Clergy provided that be first consult and hear the reasons of some at least of his Clergy 3. That Princes may prohibit the decrees even of General Councils when they are evidenced to them non docere legem Christi 9. c. 28. § General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their decrees as was done by Theodosius against the second Council of Ephesus and by the Kings of France against the Conventicle of Trent forbidding the decrees of it to be received for the space of fourty years 4ly 9. c. 21. § He approveth The concession of the Clergy under Henry the Eighth in binding themselves by promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to enact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the Kings assent Which assent were it required only for securing the Prince that nothing be acted in such Synods prejudicial to his civil rights 't is willingly allowed but it is extended further for the Prince's prohibiting any other decrees whatever when not evidenced to him to be made juxta legem Christi against which if any thing be done in his dominions he remaineth accountable to God as you have seen before § 210 Now to reflect on what Dr. Fern hath said He seemeth 1. first to grant that the Clergy can publickly establish nothing against or without the Prince's consent So that whatever they cannot evidence to the Prince that so he may concur to the publishing thereof they are hindred from promulgating or evidencing it to the people So that they are in such a manner the ordinary Judges and Definers of Controversies as that their definitions if not evidenced to may be suppressed by the Prince nor ought to come abroad to their flocks And how consists this with what he saith 9. c. § 21. That in order to our believing we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded I suppose he meaneth to us by the Pastors of the Church Again how consists this with the Clergy's coercive power 9. c. 19. § upon the Prince if Christian when obstinately gain-saying them Unless his gain-saying can never be called obstinate Will not this follow from hence that the Clergy might not promulgate Anti-Arrianisme in the Empire until they had evidenced it i. e. by his approbation thereof to Constantitus the then Emperor 2. When he saith That a Prince is not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod but only of some faithful Bishops c. when he hath just cause to fear faction in such Synods he seems in this only to keep a gap open for justifying they past Reformation and in effect to affirm that the Prince may go therein against his Clergy For since the Clergy is a subordinate and regularly-united body he that taketh directions only from some of them whom he knows or doubts and fears to be different in their judgment from the main body taketh directions not from the Clergy but from those that are against them as hath been laid down in the sixth Thesis I mean against them that are the Judges in Spiritual matters and the Definers of things in Controversy and Judges of Heresy what hath been or ought to be condemned as such Without whom therefore the Prince cannot certainly know what is or is not such As for that which is said that the establishments of the Prince are not in order to our believing if Dr. Fern meaneth that the Prince doth not propose what is evidenced to him to be the law of Christ to his Subjects with a requiring of them that they should believe that it is the law of Christ the contrary is clear at least in the practicals enjoyned all which necessarily involve Faith See Chur. Gover. 2. Part 34. § 3. Part 12. § But if he meaneth that the Subjects cannot justly be necessitated to believe what the Prince establisheth so neither are they what the Clergy establisheth in his opinion who I think alloweth to all men judicium disoretivum in respect of any Church-authority 3. The Prince thus establishing Church-matters not upon the Clergy's authority but upon evidence he seems equally to oblige the Prince to establish them by whomsoever evidenced to him or by his own search discovered for what mattereth it to the evidence who bringeth it And then how is the Prince's judgment said to be secondary in respect to the Clergy Indeed if the Prince could always be certain in his evidence so as not to mistake to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and not to think other things sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church-matters thus to his disposal But fince things are much otherwise and evidencing truths to any one by reason of different understandings education passions and interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign power when not patient enough to be informed mis-led and prepossessed by a faction not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c what an uncertain and mutable condition would Church-affairs be put in as we see they have been here in England since the times of Henry the Eighth when all the influence of the authority of the Clergy upon the people is cast upon this evidenceing first of their matters to the present Sovereign Power § 211 Concerning Theodosius's Act urged by Dr. Fern the Story in brief is this The second Ephesine Council was General in its Representation but not in the free votes of the Representatives nor in the acceptation thereof by all or the major part of Catholick Churches In it paucis imprudentibus about some Ninety in all obviantibus sacramento verae
upon the Universities abroad was demanded by the Parliament from the Clergy at home because it was said that the Cardinal and some other chief amongst them were thro their falshood and dissimulation the cause of this Forreign Expence Which Summe they resolutely refusing to contribute the whole Clergy are sued by the King and condemned by the Kings Bench in a Premunire also for receiving and acknowledging the Cardinals Power Legantine exercised by him ignorantly or presumptuously without the Kings consent and allowance first obtained The Clergy thus become liable at the Kings pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and confiscation of their Estates assemble themselves in the House of Convocation offer to pay for their Ransome the demanded 100000 l. § 20 But the King having now no hopes of obtaining a Licence for his Divorce from the Pope who at this time stood much in awe of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine that the Popes Decrees might be of no force against him negociates also by his Agents with the Clergy whilst in these fears to give him the Title of Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters within his Dominions making account that this obtained he had the assent of his own Clergy at his beck for the nulling of his former Marriage Therefore in the drawing up of the Clergy's Petition to the King for release of the Premunire it was signified from the Court cujus consilii Cranmerus Cromwellus clam authores fuisse existimabantur saith the Author Antiq. Brittanic p. 325. that a Title should be prefixed wherein they should stile the King ecclesiae cleri Anglicani Protector supremum Caput or else the Petition would not be accepted To which with some difficulty they agreed so as qualifying it with this Clause Quantum per legem Christi licet But the King again excepting at this limitation as unworthy the Clergy who either did or ought to know and definitively instruct others what Christs Law did or did not allow at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted See Antiquit. Brittannic p. 326. Sed Regi saith that Author displicuit ancipitem dubiamque mitigationem moderationem verborum a cleri sui Synodo quae de Christi lege aut certa fuit aut certa esse debuit tam frigide proferri Itaque Cromwellum ad Synodum iterum mandans eam aut tolli voluit aut clerum incursas Sanctionum paenas pati Omnium igitur ex sententiis Rex sine ambiguitate ullâ ecclesiae Angliae supremum caput declaratus est But yet this was not done till after the Clergy who much alledged that the King or some of his Successors might upon this Title ruine the Church of England in their ordering Spiritual matters without or against the Clergy thereof had obtained a voluntary promise from him to this effect That he would never by vertue of that Grant assume to himself any more power over the Clergy than all others the Kings of England had assumed nor that he would do any thing without them in altering ordering or judging in any Spiritual matters See Bishop Fisher's Life published by Dr. Bayly And this was the first Act of the Clergy which being so understood as excluding all authority of the Western Patriarch over the Church of England and transferring such authority for the future to the King is contrary to the Fourth Thesis because some such authority was conferred on this Patriarch by Superior Councils And which Act was so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledged of Schism 7. c. it is easy to believe See Church Gov. 1. Part §. 4. and §. 20. that nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it § 22 After the conceding of this Title of Supremacy to the King and exclusion of the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions and the voiding of all appeals made hence unto him and after the Kings Marriage to Anne Bullen also but before the publication thereof Cranmer being now chosen Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon the death of Warham a Favourer of the Queen Katherine's Cause Summons her to appear before him and some other Bishops and Commissioners and upon her neglect solemnly dissolveth the Kings former Marriage with her and divorceth him from her § 23 But the Kings ends thus obtained yet things rested not here And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it But whereas formerly till the Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth the Synods of the Clergy saith Dr. Heylin § 1. p 7. after called by the Kings Writ acted absolutely in their Convocations of their own authority the Kings or Parliaments assent or ratification neither concurring nor required and whereas by this sole authority which they had in themselves they made Canons declared Heresies convicted and censured persons suspected of Heresy c Now they having declared the King supream Head of the Church instead of the Pope the Western Patriarch it seemed reasonable therefore that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head And conducing much to this end as I learn from the forenamed Dr was a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons after the Ice was broken A. 1532. See Fullâ—rs Appeal of Injur'd Innocence Pa. 2. p. 65. In which saith he they desiring that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament and that their Acts and Constitutions should not bind their Subjects as before in their Goods and Possessions until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power they shewed themselves aggrieved that the Clergy of this Realm should act authoritatively and supreamly in the Convocation and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent An Answer unto which Remonstrance saith he was drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester and being allowed of by both Houses of Convocation was by them presented to the King But the King not satisfied with this Answer resolved to bring them to his bent and therefore on the Tenth of May sent a Paper to them by Dr. Foxe after Bishop of Hereford in which it was peremptorily required that no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted promulged or put in execution unless the Kings Highness do approve the same and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution c. Whereupon on the Fifteenth of the same Month they made their absolute submission So He. And thus the next step therefore of this Reformation was that the King so requiring it they bound themselves by a Synodical Act for the time to come not to assemble themselves at all without the Kings Writ and when assembled not to enact promulge or execute any Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
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
just Authority of Queen Mary's Clergy Reply to α notwithstanding what hath been objected you must First 1. take notice That the Ejection of Bishops in Queen Mary's days was not the First but Second Ejection the first being made in King Edward's time when Gardiner Bonner Tonstal Day Heath Vesy That the Bishops in K Edward's days were not lawfully ejected and probably some other Bishops were removed from their Sees for I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbring the Change of Clergy under King Edward as he doth that under Queen Mary yet something may be conjectured from those general words of his p. 1180 For the most part the Bishops were changed and the dumb Prelate compelled to give place to others that would Preach Secondly That if the Ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was not lawful so many of the Bishops as were then ejected were by Queen Mary justly restored and those who were introduced into their places justly excluded Thirdly That to prove the Ejection of those Bishops under King Edward lawful it must be done both by a lawful Authority and for a lawful Cause Fourthly But that in both these respects their Ejection if the Principles formerly laid in this Discourse stand good appears not just § 55 For 1. First these Bishops being questioned about matters Ecclesiastical and Spiritual 1. Neither for the Judge their Judges were the Kings Privy Council or his Commissioners part Clergy part Laity as the King pleased to nominate them contrary to Third Thesis Amongst whom tho the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was one yet he was so not for his Canonical Superiority in the Church but from the Authority he jointly with the rest received from the King when the former Statutes concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Clergy See Fox p. 1237 and p 1202. had been first abrogated See before § 39 whereas the Clergy only are the lawful Judges of these matters namely to declare what is done contrary to the Laws of God and of the Church and to depose from the exercise of their Office the persons found faulty therein See Thesis Third § 56 Secondly The Causes Ecclesiastical urged against them for which they were removed from their Bishopricks were these 2. Nor for the Cause their non-acknowledgment of such a large extended Power of the Kings Supremacy as he then claimed and exercised in Ecclesiastical matters their non-conformity to the Kings Injunctions confirmed if you will with the consent of the National Synod of the Clergy in Spiritual matters And amongst these especially their not relinquishing the usage of the former Church Liturgies and Forms of Divine Service and particularly the Canon of the Mass which had been a Service approved by the general Practice of the Church Catholick for near a 1000 Years in which were now said to be many Errors See Church Gâ—v 4. 〈◊〉 §. 39. for which it might not be lawfully used their not using and conforming to the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments the new Form of Consecration and Ordination of Priests and many other clear Innovations against the former not only Ecclesiastical Constitutions or External Rites and Ceremonies which it was affirmed in one of the Questions disputed on in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth that every particular Church hath Authority to take away and change but also Ecclesiastical Doctrines established by Synods superiour to that of this Nation as hath been shewed in the Fourth Part of Church Govern A Catalogue of which Doctrines and Canons I have set down before § 45 having taken them out of the Three Copies of Articles proposed to the then Bishop of Winchester See Fox p. 1234 1235. to be subscribed Now such Canons whether concerning matters of Doctrine or of Ecclesiastical Constitution cannot be lawfully abrogated neither by the King See Thesis 1 2.7 8 nor by the National Synods of this Church See Thesis 4.8 and therefore the Ejection of those Bishops in Edward the Sixth's days for not obeying the King I add or the National Synod had there been any such before their Ejection in breaking such Canons was unjust and therefore they justly by Queen Mary restored and the others that were found in their places justly dispossessed Fifthly As for the rest of King Edward's Bishops who besides those Bishops that possessed these non-vacant Sees were ejected in Queen Mary's days § 57 5. That the Bishops deprived in Qu. Mary's days were lawfully ejected their Ejection contrary to the other will be justifiable if done for a lawful Cause and by a lawful Judge 1. First then the Causes of their Ejection were these chiefly § 58 First For their being Married which many if not all the Ejected were Cranmer 1. Bâ—th as to the Cause Holgate the Arch-Bishop of York Coverdale Scory Barlow Hooper Farrar Harley Bird Bush and some of them after having taken Monastick Vows as Holgate Coverdale Barlow as appears in Fox and Godwin contrary to the Canons of the Church both Western and Eastern as to those that marry after having received Holy Orders both Modern and Ancient even before the Council of Nice as is shewed at large in the Discourse of Celibacy § 18 and contrary to the Provincial Canons of the Church of England See Fox p. 1051 and 177 granting Celibacy of the Clergy to have been established here for a Law by a National Synod in the time of Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about An. Dom. 1080 The Penalty of transgressing which Canons was Deposition from their Office See Conc. Constant in Trullo less strict in this matter than the Western Church Can. 6 Si quis post sui ordinationem conjugium contrahere ausus fuerit deponatur See the same in Concil Neocaesar before that of Nice Can. 1. Conc Elibert 33. c. Affrican Can. 37. And see the same in the Canon of Anselme that all Priests that keep Women shall be deprived of their Churches and all Ecclesiastical Benefices § 59 Secondly For their not acknowledging any Supremacy at all of the Roman Patriarch 2 more than of any other Forreign Bishop over the Clergy of England contrary to the former Canons of many lawful Superior Councils as is shewed in Church Gov. 1. Part. § 53. and also contrary to the former Provincial ones of the English Church And for their placing such an Ecclesiastical Supremacy in the Prince as to use all Jurisdiction to reform Heresy constitute or reverse Ecclesiastical Laws in the manner before expressed Which Supremacy in the Church since some body in each Prince's Dominion where Christians are ever had here on Earth under Christ I say ever not only after that Princes became Christian but before Arch-Bishop Cranmer rather than that he would acknowledge it at any time to have lain in the Church said that before the first Christian Emperors time it resided in the Heathen Princes
promise of the guiding of his Spirit into all truth But that any such Council hath at any time allowed the Mass c I affirm saith he to be impossible for Superstition i e. the Masy and the sincere Religion of Christ can never agree together For Determination of all Controversies in Christ's Religion Christ hath left unto the Church not only Moses and the Prophets to ask counsel at but also the Gospels Christ would have the Church his Spouse in all doubts to ask counsel at the word of his Father written Neither do we read that Christ in any place hath laid so great a Burthen upon the Members of his Spouse that he hath commanded them to go to the Universal Church It is true that Christ gave unto his Church some Apostles some Prophets c. But that all men should meet together out of all parts of the world to define of the Articles of our Faith I neither find it commanded of Christ nor written in the Word of God To which Bishop Latimer nexeth these words In things pertaining to God and Faith we must stand only to the Scriptures which are able to make us all perfect and instructed to Salvation if they be well understood And they offer themselves to be well understood only to those who have good wills and give themselves to study and Prayer neither are there any men less apt to understand them than the prudent and wise men of the world Thus Latimer in application of his Discourse to General Councils See likewise Bishop Ridley's Disputation at Oxford where being pressed with the Authority of the great Lateran Council Fox â— 1321. after having replyed that there were Abbots Priors and Friers in it to the Number of 800 he saith that he denyeth the Authority of this Council not so much for that cause as for this especially because the Doctrine of that Council agreed not with the word of God i e. as he understood this word Thus he who was counted the most Learned of those Bishops concerning the Authority of Councils See like matter in the Discourse between Lord Rich and Mr. Philpot Fox p. 1641. § 63 To proceed These Canons and Definitions I say not of Popes and Pontificians as they were ordinarily then Nick-named but of supposed former lawful Superior Councils were then in just force in Queen Mary's days notwithstanding any abrogation of them made by a National i e. an Inferior Synod See Thesis the Fourth and the Eighth as also was frequently urged against those questioned Bishops See the Examination of Arch Bishop Cranmer Fox p. 1702. where Dr. Story the Queens Commissioner thus objecteth but receives no answer there to it The Canons which be received of all Christendome compel you to answer For altho this Realm of late time thro such Schismaticks as you have exiled and banished the Canons yet that cannot make for you for you know that par in parem nec pars in totum aliquid statuere potest Wherefore this Isle being indeed but a Member of tire whole could not determine against the whole Thus Dr. Story Yet neither in Queen Mary's time could the Authority of a National Synod or an Act of Parliament be pleaded for such an abrogation of the old Canons or Liturgies or Supremacies and the establishment of new because both the Synod and Parliament of this Nation in the beginning of her Reign had pulled down again what those under King Edward and Henry had builded so that those Bishops could not hereupon ground their non-conformity which Argument Dr. Story there also prosecuteth against the Arch-Bishop § 64 Such as these then being the Causes of the Ejection of those Bishops I think it is evidenced And 2â—◠〈◊〉 to the Jâ—â—â— that they were Regularly and Canonically ejected as to the Cause And 2. Next so were they as to the Judge They being condemned as guilty of Heresy 2. or other Irregularities which are mulcted with Deposition and so ejected or also degraded and excommunicated with the greater Excommunication further than which the Ecclesiastical Power did not proceed not by any Secular Court or by the Queen's Commissioners but by those whom the Church hath appointed in the Intervals of Councils the ordinary Judges of Heresy or other Breaches of her Canons Amongst whom the highest Judges are the Patriarchs and above them the first Patriarch of Rome By whose Delegates the more Eminent Persons that were accused of Heresy the Arch-Bishop and the Bishops were here tryed according to the Authority shewed to be due to and to be anciently used by him in Chur. Gov. 1. Part. § 9.20 c and 2. Part § 77 and other Inferior Persons were tryed by the Bishop who was their Ordinary Queen Mary having revived the Statutes repealed by King Henry and Edward concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Church's Authority as hath been noted before § 49. The issue of which Tryal by the Church if they found guilty was either Deposition only from their Benefice and Office for Breach of her Canons or also Excommunication excommnnicatione majori and Degradation for Heresy and Opposition of her Definitions hi matters of Faith and so the yielding them up as now by degradation rendred Secular Persons to have inflicted on them by the Secular Power the punishments appointed for such crimes by the Secular Laws as you may see in the Forms of the Condemnation of Cranmer Ridley c Fox p. 1603 and elsewhere and in the Profession of the Bishop of Lincoln to Bishop Ridley Fox p. 1597. All saith he that we may do is to cut you off from the Church for we cannot condemn you to dy as most untruly hath been reported of us c. § 65 As for the burning of such afterward whom the Church first condemns of Heresy To β. it is to be considered Where Concern the buâ—â—ing of those whâ— in Q. Mary days were by the Câ—u condemned of Heresy That the Secular Laws not Ecclesiastical appoint it and the Secular Magistrates not Ecclesiastical execute it Again That Protestant Princes as well as Catholick King Edward King James Queen Elizabeth as well as Queen Mary have thought fit to execute this Law upon Hereticks So in Edward the Sixth's days Joan of Kent Anne Askews Maid who was burnt in Henry the Eighth's days for denying the Real Presence and George Paris were burnt for Hereticks Fox p. 1180 And some other Anabaptists condemned and recanting were enjoined to bear their Faggots See Stow p. 596. And in Henry the Eighth's time Arch-Bishop Cranmer in the Kings presence disputed against Jo. Lambert for denying the Real Presence and the Lord Cromwel pronounced Sentence upon him to be burnt for it Fox p. 1024 1026. And the same Arch-Bishop being as yet only a Lutheran saith Fox p. 1115 prosecuted others upon the same grounds and also in the beginning of King Edward's Reign before that the Protector and his Party appeared much for Zuinglianisme committed to the Counter
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
Antiquit-Brittan p. 339. And you see by the Testimonies forecited how many suffered for opposing the Kings Injunctions and particularly this new Form of Common-Prayer and how many more of the old Clergy are said to have opposed them in every place where they might hope for impunity insomuch as that this Book in many places was not so much as heard of and how a major part even of the Bishops are by Protestants confessed in their conformity only to have used an ontward compliance and dissimulation Lastly 3. From what they so many as remained of them did immediately after King Edward s time so soon as this Yoke of fear was removed in the entrance of Queen Mary at which time they threw-off their former vizards and plainly renounced not only the rest of the Reformation the fruit but also the Regal Supremacy i. e quoad talia the root Nor could fear when the Sovereign power rechanged ever make them taught by long experience to take up again their former disguise amongst whom the major part of those seven Bishops chosen to compose the new Common-Prayer-Book who survived to Queen Mary's days namely Day Thirlby and Goodrich Skyp Bishop of Hereford and Holbeck Bishop of Lincolne being dead before deserted this new Form and returned again to the Mass And it is probable that some of those Bishops who by Queen Mary were ejected for Marriage some of them even after a Monastick profession conformed themselves likewise to the old Religion because tho they lived here at home in so inquisitive and severe times we find not that they were restrained or proceeded against as Hereticks Such were Holgate Bird Bush c. § 128 Now since such were the inclinations of all or most of King Edward's first Clergy and to be swayed only from the profession thereof by fear no marvel if his Council went about reforming at the first by vertue of the new Supremacy before the calling of any Synod save that wherein Arch-Bishop Cranmer was frustrated of his intentions And Dr. Fern Exam. Champ. 2. c. § 8. makes this Apology for such proceeding That Reformation of Gods worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote where there is just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons which are to be convocated and the times wherein they are to assemble To which purpose saith he sounds that known complaint of Nazianzen That he saw no good end of Councils spoken by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians in his time We cannot say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in a Synod especially where there is just cause of fear I suppose that he means Fear that the Synod will go contrary to what the Prince thinks to be right but he may have greater reason to ask advice from persons free from the exceptions of factious interests to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious And saith he how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edward's Reign i. e till the King had otherwise moulded the Members of the Synod or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical Vote I cannot say Thus Dr. Fern. § 129 And much-what in the same manner doth Dr. Heylin Eccles Vindic. 2. Par. 5. § p. 82. discourse of King Edward's Reformation to shew you that our modern Writers are not without some apprehension of the neglect of the Church authority in it Which reviving saith he of the ancient Forms of Gods worship rather than the introduction of a new as the King Edward did here in England by his own authority the body of the Clergy not consulted in it so possibly there might be good reason why those who had the conduct of the Kings Affairs thought it not safe to put the managing of the business to a Convocation and then having shewed that such change of Religion would be both against the reputation and profit of the Clergy he goes on So that as well in point of reputation as of profit besides the love which many of them had to their former Mumpsimus it was most probable that such an hard piece of Reformation would not easily down had it been put into the power of a Convocation especially under a Prince in nonage and a State unsettled Thus he As for that which afterward he saith That this was passed by the Bishops when it passed in Parliament the Bishops making the most considerable van of the House of Peers It is answered by what hath been said before § 11. n. 2. And what he saith That all was confirmed by the Clergy on the Post-fact in the Convocation of 1552 sall be answered by and by See likewise what the same Dr. saith on the same subject in 1. Par. 6. § p. 36 where after doubting whether several particulars of King Edward's Reformation were done of the Kings meer motion or by advice of his Council or by Consultation With his Bishops For saith he there is little left upon record of the Convocation of that time more than the Articles of the year 1552 He speaks also of Queen Elizabeth's Reformation done after the same sort Thus also saith he in Queen Elizabeth's time before the new Bishops were well setled and the Queen assured of the affection of her Clergy she went that way to work in the Reformation which her two Predecessors Henry and Edward had done before her in the well ordering of the Church she published her Injunctions c. But when the times were better setled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church-work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation did make Canons c. And thus if a Prince according to the Sect which himself and his Council favours may take the liberty with coactive power to reform at the first against his Clergy he within a short time no doubt may securely leave the Church-work to Church-men as the Dr. saith and justify his Reformation by his Clergy that is either changed first or terrified § 130 To χ. To χ. These two I grant differ little 1 The Clergy's first motioning to the King 2. or The King 's first motioning to the Clergy a Reformation of something in Doctrine or Manners so that the Clergy uncompelled or forced by the King establish it before it be enjoyned or imposed on any to be observed But this following differs from the former toto coelo viz. When the King directed by some particular Bishops whom he thinks good to advise with proposeth to the Clergy a Reformation in Doctrine not to be consulted on by them and their judgment to be exhibited to him upon the assent or denyal of a major part of whom as having in these things the legislative power such Reformation may be established or laid aside but to be obeyed and
Bishop and to take away all Superstition the Communion Bread appointed to be such as is usually eaten at the Table but the purest of that sort that can conveniently be had See the Rubricks of King Edward's secondCommon Prayer-Book Fol. 126. And Visita S ck Fol. 22. And lastly whereas the first gives caution § 161 that so much Bread and Wine shall be consecrated Where Concerning the reduction of somethingâ— touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to K. Edw. frâ—st Form as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion except some shall be reserved for the Communion of the Sick The second omits any such caution ordering only that the Curate have the remains to his own use But the new Liturgy composed for Scotland well discerning what these alterations aimed at reduceth all things to the former way restores those words in the Consecration with thy holy spirit and word c. that They may be unto us the Body c. ordering again the Presbyter that officiates to take the Pattin and Chalice in his hands and leaving out also the caution of non-elevation which was inserted in the first Book of King Edward removes the words added in the delivering of the Mysteries Take and eat this c. and instead thereof adds aster the former words the people's response Amen according to the custome of Antiquity See Dionys Alexand. apud Euseb Histor 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7. mensis August ad Orosium quaest 49. spoken as a Confession of their Faith that they acknowledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini Lastly requires him that officiates that he consecrate Bread and Wine with the least to the end there may be little left and that what is left be not carried out of the Church but reverently eaten and drunk by such of the Communicants only as the Presbyter that celebrates shall take unto him § 162 All this could not pass the Observation of the Scotchman who in the Laudensium Autocatacrisis Much complained of 〈◊〉 Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 107. thus censures it In the next Prayer saith he i. e. that of Consecration are put in the words of the Mass whereby God is besought by his omnipotent Spirit so to sanctify the Oblations of Bread and Wine that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood From these words all Papists use to draw the truth of their Trans-substantiation wherefore the English Reformers i. e. the lattor scraped them out of their Books but our men put them fairly in And good reason have they so to do For long ago they professed that about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists except only about the formality and mode of Presence here quoting Mountag Appeal p. 289. They make an express Rubrick for the Priest's taking the Patin and the Chalice in his hand in the time of Consecration Which taking not being either for his own participation or the distribution to others why shall we not understand the end of it to be that which the Mass there enjoyns their Elevation and Adoration The Elevation being long ago practiced by some of our Bishops and Adoration when the Patin and Chalice are taken in the Priest's hands avowed by Heylin's Answ to Burt. p. 137. The English indeed in giving the Elements to the people retain the Mass-words but to prevent any mischief Autocat p. 111. that could arise in the people's mind from their sound of a Corporal Presence they put in at the distribution of both the Elements two Golden Sentences of the hearts eating by Faith of the Soul 's drinking in remembrance But our men being nothing affraid for the people's belief of a Corporal Presence have pulled out of their hands and scraped out of our Book both these Antidotes And the Mass-words thus quit of the English Antidotes must not stand in our Book simply but that the people may take extraordinary notice of these Phrases there are two Rubricks set up to their backs obliging every Communicant with their own mouth to say their Amen to them The English permit the Curate to carry home the relicks of the Bread and Wine for his private use but such Profanity by our Book is discharged The Consecrate Elements are enjoyned to be eaten in the Holy place by the Priest alone and some of the Communicants that day yea for preventing of all dangers a cautel is put in that so few Elements as may be consecrate And our Book will have the Elements after the Consecration covered with a Corporal c. § 163 Thus the first Form both when first established in King Edward's and when revived in King Charles's time found many Adversaries But did the new one escape any better No. For when all these offensive things in the second draught were amended according to several preciser fancies yet neither so did the second content all palats for the humour of Innovation knoweth no bounds Soon after it was framed as the chief body of the Clergy under Queen Mary deserted both it and the former and returned to the old Church-Service so the English Protestants that were then dispersed abroad at Franckford in Germany fell into great dissensions about it as some for so many against it See a fuller relation in Heylin's Hist of Reform in Queen Mary p. 59. c. And Calvin hearing the noise thereof as he had formerly used his Pen to the Protector c against the first Book so now doth he to the English in Franckford Calvin Ep. p. 213. against the second saying In Anglicanâ Liturgiâ qualem describitis i. e. the new one which some of them then used at Franckford mult as video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias Sic ergo a talibus rudimentis incipere licuit ut doctos tamen graves Christi ministros ultra eniti aliquid limatius ac purius quaerere consentaneum foret Si hactenus in Anglia viguisset sincera religio aliquid in melius correctum multaque detracta esse oportuit Nunc cum eversis illis princtpiis alibi instituenda vobis sit Ecclesia liberum sit formam de integro componere he thinks it seems any Pastors have power to make to themselves new Liturgies quid sibi velint nescio quos faecis Papisticae reliquiae tantopere delectant Amant ea quibus assueti sunt Hoc nugatorium puerile est c. Thus Calvin And so Bucer likewise in his censure of the first who died within a few weeks after he had writ it before the compiling of the second hath blamed many things that remain in the second After Queen Mary's death the second Book being restored here again to its former authority many of the more zealous Reformists both by words and writings made such opposition against it that Queen Elizabeth in terrorem executed two for this cause See
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
other general words whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfections or disability that could be objected against the same So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness i. e. in Ecclesiasticals which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops See it before §. 70 it is evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against the said Consecrations c. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church in these Church matters And the Answer seems in effect this That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church § 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject this reformed Clergy being such persons as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince and therefore it is not strange if the Prince acted no more against but by them and began now a-new to use the Synod more than the Senate in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs CHAP. XIII The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy § 196 ONly before I conclude this Discourse let me shew you The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it after all the rest that as it hath been affirmed here that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines tho they contend that our Princes did not so Yet as if they doubted much whether they should be able to make this good do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves that a Prince when there is a necessity that requires it of which necessity the Prince is to judge or in cases extraordinary of which cases the Prince is to judge may lawfully reform Religion both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline contrary to the major part of the Clergy these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Superiors Nay also in the beginning of this work such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent because if they should once maintain That no Reformation is valid which is done against the major part of the National Clergy by the same reason they must assert that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy or of the Church or Council to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience § 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion is that of Dr. Field He The Opinion of Dr. Field after these specious Concessions We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on according to former resolutions Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion but in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils in matters not formerly determined to the judgment of his Clergy i. e. the major part thereof Yet after such specious Concessions I say he proceedeth as it were to protect the Reformation on this manner Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service there is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them But because they may fail they i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and not onely single persons but Synods of them else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods and a minor by the major part and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these to other Judges either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over Gods people and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily Thus Dr. Field § 198 Who not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi cui deplorata res est here seems to six the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice to others or at least cannot fail so soon as the whole body of the Clergy may what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they As one that hath a charge over Gods people and is to see that they worship God aright as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he or as if he could judge what was
it remains therefore to examine whether he has been a more faithful Relator of our own History and what truth there is in his last Epistolary assertion that he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but what the Kings of England have foregone before Henry the 8th Now whatever in relation to a power in Spirituals is in this Discourse accus'd of Novelty seems easily reducible to these two Heads 1st A Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical denied to the Western Patriarch as appears by our Princes taking away all manner of Forreign Jurisdiction prohibiting all appeals to the See of Rome all Bulls from it and in generall all Intercourse with it 2ly The same Supremacy invested in the Sovereign as appears by King Henry's assuming the title of Head of the Church by the Kings making Ecclesiastical Laws by that Synodical act of the Clergy not to assemble or promulgate any Canons without his leave by that power granted to the King to visit Ecclesiastical persons and to reform Errours and Heresies by his collating to Benefices without consent of the Clergy and by hindring Excommunications in foro externo Now in Answer to this charge of Novelty It is confest that the Pope did for some Years usurp such a superiority but then as it is granted that he did de facto claim such a power so that it did de jure belong to him is denied and not only so but farther we affirm that he neither from the beginning challenged such a power nor was he afterwards in so full possession of it but that our Princes have upon Occasion vindicated their own right against all Papal or if he pleaseth Patriarchal Encroachments And here waving the dispute of right I shall confine my self to matter of Fact that being the only case here controverted Where 1st of the Supremacy of the Western-Patriarch That when Austin came over to convert the Saxons no such Supremacy was acknowledg'd by the British Christians is evident from the celebrated Answer of Dinoth Abbot of Bangor to Austin requiring such subjection Notum sit Vobis c. * Spelm. Conc. p. 108. Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every good pious Christian viz. to love every one in his degree and place in perfect Charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the Sons of God and for other Obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Vske who is to overlook and govern us under God This is farther manifest from the * Spelm A. C. 601. British Clergy twice refusing in full Synod after mature deliberation to own any such subjection That appeals to Rome were a thing unheard of till Anselms time appears from the application of the Bishops and Barons to him to disswade him from such an attempt * Inauditum in regno suo esse usibus ejus omnino contrarium quemlibet de Principibus praecipue Te tale quid praesumere Eadm p. 39.30 telling him it was a thing unheard of in this Kingdom that any of the Peers and especially one in his station should praesume any such thing That Legates from Rome were for 1100 Years unheard of in this Kingdom we may learn from a memorable passage in the same Historian concerning the Arch-Bishop of Vienna reported to have the Legantine power over England granted him A. C. 1100 * Quod per Angliam auditum in admirationem omnibus venit Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae Ead. p. 58. 41. The News of which being come to England was very surprizing to all people every one knowing it was a thing unheard of that any one should have Apostolical Jurisdiction over them but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury And the event of that Legacy was suitable * Quapropter sicut venit ita reversus est à Nemine pro Legato susceptus uec in aliquo Legati officio functus Ibid. for as he came so he return'd being taken by no one for a Legate nor in any thing discharging the office of a Legate That the Church of Canterbury own'd no Superiour Bishop to her own but Christ appears from her being call'd * Ger. Dorob Coll. Hist Angl. 1663. 24. Col. 1615. 60. Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione and in another place Mater omnium Anglicanarum Ecclesiarum quae suo post Deum proprio laetatur Pastore That appeals to Rome were prohibited in King Henry the 2ds time is manifest from the famous Capitula of Clarendon amongst which this is one Article If any appeals shall happen they ought to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop shall fail in doing Justice the last Address is to be made to the King That Doctrines prejudicial to the Popes power were then publickly maintain'd appears from these Propositions amongst others censur'd by Becket 1st That none might appeal to the See Apostolick on any account without the Kings leave 2d That it might not be lawful for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop to depart the Kingdom and come at the Popes Summons without the Kings leave 3d. That no Bishop might Excommunicate any who held of the King in capite nor Interdict his Officers without the Kings leave Which propositions so censur'd are selected out of the Capitula of Clarendon to the Observation of which all the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks even Becket himself amongst the rest tho' afterwards falling of had oblig'd themselves by a solemn Oath acknowledging them to be the customs of the King's Predecessours to wit Henry The 1st his Grandfather and others and that they ought to be kept inviolable by all To what party the Bishops were inclin'd in these differences betwixt the King and Becket we cannot better learn then from Baronius whose severe animadversion on these Praelates wherein he teaches us what Kings are to expect if they displease his Holiness and how dreadful his Fulminations be when they come out with full Apostolick vigour the Reader may peruse in the * Episcopi Angliae suffraganei Sancti Thomae literis ejusdem sui Archiepiscopi Apostolica legatione fungentis exagitati resilientes haud ut par erat parere mandatis salubres admonitiones suscipere Catholicae Ecclesiae utilitati consulere vendicantes eam à miscrrima servitute studuerunt sed ex adverso oppositi pro Rege contra ipsum scriptis verbis factisque repugnant ac tantum abest ut quod eorum muneris erat ad quod suis eos
two Gommissioners who were of the Clergy * Ibid. 5thly As for Collation of Benefices Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishopricks are of the King's Foundation and that they were Originally Donative not Elective and that the full right of Investitures was in the Sovereign who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi annuli by the delivery of a Ring and Crosier Staff to the Person by him elected and Nominated for that Office * Cokes Instit l. 3. S. 648. Accordingly we find in the Statute of Provisors Ed. 3. A. 28. the King call'd Advower Parantount of all Benefices which be of the Advowrie of people of Holy Church And it is there said That Elections were first granted by the King's Progenitors upon a certain form and Eondition as to demand License of the King to choose and after Election to have his Royal Assent and not in other manner That if such Conditions were not kept the thing ought in reason to resort to its first Nature Lastly as for Hindring Excommunications in fore externo It is one of the Articles of Clarendom That None that hold of the King in capite nor any of his Houshold Servants may be Excommunicated nor their Land interdicted unless our Lord the King if he be in the Kingdom be first treated with or his Justice if he be abroad so that he may do what is Right concerning him And amongst the Articuli Cleri c. 7. It is complain'd that the King's Letters us'd to be directed to Ordinaries that have wrapt their Subjects in Sentence of Excommunication that they should assoil them by a certain day or else that they do appear and answer wherefore they excommunicated them This short account however imperfect may suffice to shew that the Regal power in Spirituals challeng'd by King Henry the 8th was not quitted by his Predecessors And if the Reader desires a more full account of these things I shall refer him to Dr. Hammond's Dispatcher Dispatch'd c. 2. Sect. 5. Bishop Bramhal's just Vindication c. 4. Repl. to the Bishop of Chalcedon c. 4. Sch. guarded c. 12. Sect. 3. as also to Sr. Roger Twisden in his Historical vindication of the C. of England in point of Schism Which Learned Author has by a through insight into History Law-books Registers and other Monuments of Antiquity enabled himself to give full and ample satisfaction to every unpraejudic'd Reader concerning this Subject and to convince him that this Author knew very little either of the English History or of his own Book if He knew not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which were foregone by the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth As for what he adds that no more Supremacy in such Ecclesiastical matters Ep. as are delegated by Christ to the Clergy and are unalienable by them to any Secular power can belong to the Princes of one time or of one Nation then do to any other Prince of a former Time or a diverse Nation We willingly acknowledge it since no such powers belong to any Prince at any time or of any Nation But then there is a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters delegated by God to the Prince which may be invaded by a Forreigner under a forg'd pretence of his being Head of the Church and here Secular Laws may be made for the protection of such Rights and for the punishment of those who shall either invade them or vindicate such Invasion And that person who under praetext of maintaining the Churches rights shall impugn the just Autority of his Sovereign may be more a disloyal Subject in these days when this Autority is by the Laws vindicated from Forreign Usurpation then he would have been in those days when such Usurpation was tolerated and conniv'd at Having dwelt hitherto on the Epistle and discover'd so much Insincerity in that which yet was to bespeak the Reader 's good Opinion of the ensuing Discourse We have no great reason to expect any fairer dealing in the prosecution of his design And here I shall be excus'd if I be the shorter in the Examination of his Theses both because they are such as being propos'd only and not prov'd it lies in our power to accept or reject them at pleasure as also because they have already undergone the Censure of a Noble Pen and have not been able to abide a fair Tryall Some of them are so ambiguously exprest that they may be either true or false according to the different construction they are capable of The fals-hood of others is self-evident But then for the better vending of these some truths are intermix'd according to the policy of Luther's Antagonist observ'd by his Biographer * Consid concerning Luther § 48. p. 90. Who to make his bad wares saleable diligently mixeth some small stock of good with evil so to make this more current and all easily swallow'd down together by the imprudent and credulous Another Artifice much practis'd by our Author is that he lays down his Propositions in general terms but afterwards restrains them by such limitations which if adher'd to would make them utterly disserviceable to his Cause but then when they come to be applied the Theses are refer'd to at large without any regard to such limitations Thus when in his first Thesis he has propos'd That it is not in the just power of the Prince to deny giving the Ministers of Christ license to exercise their Office §. 3. p 4. and their Ecclesiastical Censures in his Dominions He means he saith in general for he meddles not with the Prince his denying some of them to do these things whilst he admits others Now if this Restraint be observ'd then all which he would establish from this Thesis will come to Nothing For he will not I believe presume to say that the Reforming Princes ever laid a general Interdict upon all the Clergy to prohibit them the exercise of their Ecclesiastical Functions This is an Act which the Reformation detests and which we leave to the charitableness of the Universal Pastor who by Virtue of our Saviour's Command of Pasce oves challenges to himself a power of depriving the flock of all Spiritual food Thus again When in his third Thesis he has asserted that the Secular Prince cannot eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy §. 5. p. 12. nor consequently the Patriarch from any Autority which he stands possest of by Ecclesiastical Canons He restrains such Canons to those only that cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government Now he knows that all Canons which would obtrude upon us a forreign usurp'd Autority are by us pretended whether justly or not they will best judge who impartially weigh our Reasons injurious to the Civil Government Another Limitation of this Thesis is that the Civil power may judge and eject §. 8. p. 16. and disauthorize
and appointment But it is to be remembred that the Ecclesiastical Censures asserted to belong to the Clergie in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world but the censures here spoken of are such as have reference to the things of this world The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows we confess from their Ordination but the Actual exercise thereof in publick Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Autority for receiving of Appeals pag. 99. and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular but also from all the Clergy in general not making the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Convocation but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8.19 c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch or Spiritual Controversies but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion of deciding what is Gods word and divine Truth What are Errors in the faith or in the practise of Gods Worship and Service nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis Or if any such Quaestions should be involv'd in the Causes to be tried Why may not the Commissioners if Secular judge according to what has been praedetermin'd by the Clergy or let us suppose a case never yet determin'd How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transfer'd on secular Persons since if Occasion requir'd the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical But not only the Acts of State and Church but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examin'd by his Test and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin * Heylins Ref. Justified part 1. §. 6. p 240. that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the stamp of Royal Autority be imprinted on them Now it is plain to any one that views the Context that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual as hath influence on their Civil rights For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Autority But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent who only has the power of inflicting them Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis had he at so great a distance remembred it which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures which have reference to things not of this but the next World These are the Inferences which I find deduc'd from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse which had they been as conclusive as they are false yet I do not find but that his own party if that be the Roman Catholick had suffer'd most by them For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right what shall we think of that Roman Catholick Clergy who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had receiv'd from Christ what shall we think of those Pastours who so unfaithfully manag'd the Depositum of their Saviour If denying the Popes Authority was so piacular a Crime what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries who professing a more then ordinary Sanctity and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so * Burn Ref. l. 3. p. 182. resolutely abjur'd it What of those Learned in the * Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae zelo religione conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimos Interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi à Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259. Vniversity who after a solemn debate and serious disquisition of the cause so peremptorily defin'd against it What of the * Ref. l. 2. p. 142. Whole Body of the Clergy whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies Pag. 2. and to judge what is Gods Word and divine Truth § 2 what are Errors who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it What of the leading part of those Prelates Ibid. p. 137. Gardiner Bonner and Tonstal who Wrote Preach'd and Fram'd Oaths against it What of the Ibid. p. 144. Nobles and Commons Persons of presum'd Integrity and Honour who prepared the Bill against it What lastly of the Sovereign a declar'd Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine and Defender of the Roman Catholick Faith who past that Bill into a Law and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments If all these acted sincerely then it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed but of the Romanists which is written against If not we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Professors then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that which if it be any part is a main Article of their Faith But to return to our Author What shall we judge of his skill in Controversie who from Principles assum'd gratis draws Deductions which by no means follow and which if they did follow would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronize But because he has offer'd something under this first Thesis why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy I come now to consider it He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of
c. But this it is for people to meddle in Controversie at an Age when they have forgot their Grammar Notwithstanding therefore this Aristarchus We still retain the Liberty of believing and obeying only such things which be defined according to God's Word For which we are much blamed in the Conclusion of this Discourse * p. 260. In rejection of the Churche's Judgment saith he let none think himself secure in relying on the Testimony of his Conscience or judgment But what reason soever he may have to undervalue the Testimony of a good Conscience we think it advisable from St. Paul * 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 19. to hold faith and a good conscience which some having put away concerning faith have made Ship-wrack Of whom are But saith he let none think himself secure in any of these things so long as his Conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing namely his Disobedience and Inconformity to the Church-Catholic But our Consciences do not witness to us any disobedience to the Church-Catholic but only to that Church which falsly praetends to be Catholic He means to the Major part of the Guides thereof But the cause has not yet been decided by Poll that we should know which side has the Majority Let him know that his Condition is very dangerous when he maketh the Church-Guides of his own time or the major part thereof incommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion There was a time then when to believe the Consubstantiality of the Son was a dangerous Condition and this perhaps made Pope Liberius externally to profess Arrianism When for the maintaining of his Opinions he begins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church But why not distinguish where the Church her self distinguishes and saith Christ indeed in the Scriptures instituted so but I institute otherwise as in the case of denying the Cup. Between the Doctrines of the Catholic Church of the former ages and of the Catholic Church of the present But here again the Church her self distinguishes when She tells us that * Conc. Const Sess 13. licet in primitiva Ecclesia sub utraque specie Sacramentum reciperetur Yet now the contrary Custom habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Between the Church's orthodoxness in Necessaries and non-necessaries to Salvation If there be no difference betwixt these why doth a * Guide in Controv. Disc 1 c. 6. par 56. Friend of the Author tell us of an Obedience of Assent in the one but of Non-contradition only in the other When he begins to maintain the Autority of an Inferior Ecclesiastical Judge against a Superior But what if this be only where the Inferior Judge agrees tho' not with his immediate Superior yet with the Supreme Or of a minor part of the Church-Guides against a Major But that is not a case yet fairly decided When they grant that God hath given them beside the Scriptures guides of their Faith But those Guides themselves to be guided by the Scripture And that they have in their judgment departed from those Guides i. e. the major part of them But this we would have prov'd Which in a Court consisting of mapy is the legall Judge Guides and Judges are different things but we hope when this Court sits the Judges will consult the Scripture the Statute they are to go by and if they judge according to that they will judge well These are the Doctrines of blind-Obedience which this Author so studiously inculcates For sice Doctrines are taught us different from Scripture we are advis'd to use another way of discerning Doctrines then what the Gospel prescribes Our Saviour bids us Mat. 16.6.12 Beware of the leaven i. e. the doctrine of Pharisee's tho' sitting in Moses his Chair We are now advis'd to embrace all the doctrines of those that sit in the Chair of S. Peter Christ bids us * Mat. 24.4 Take heed that no man deceive us tho' coming in his Name We are now told that they who come to us in the Name of Christ cannot deceive us St. Paul saith * Gal. 1.8 that If an Angel from Heaven preach to us any other Doctrine then that which he preach'd Let him be accurs'd Now if we do not embrace whatever a Patriarch from the West preaches tho' never so contrary to the Gospel we are concluded under an Anathema The Apostles tell us that they * 2 Cor. 1.24 have no Dominion over our Faith but their Successors exercise a Despotic power in requiring a servile Obedience to all their Dictates S. Paul's practise was to * Gal. 2.11.14 withstand Peter to the face When he saw that he walk'd not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel but St. Peter's Successor pleads that in no case he may be withstood because it is impossible but that he should walk uprightly in the truth of the Gospel The inspir'd Divine bids us * Rev. 18.4 Come out of Babylon that we may not partake of her Sins Our modern Theologists advise us to come back into * Babylonia apud Joannem Romanae urbis figura est Tertul. adv Marc. l. 3. c. 13. Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 2. Babylon for that She only is impeccable Imprimatur GILB IRONSIDE Vice-Can Oxon. Octob. 19. 1687. REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORICAL PART OF Church-Government PART V. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his Neighbor cometh and searcheth him Prov. 18.17 OXFORD Printed at the THEATER Anno 1687. The Introduction THE Pamphlet proposes to relate the English Reformation and to examine the lawfulness of it Now from an Examiner we might justly expect Argument and from a Relator Truth How he argues I find consider'd by the Animadverter Two small defects he has been charg'd with 1st That he proceeds upon dubious or false Premises 2ly That were they granted his Conclusions would not follow It is my business to examine his Narrative which yet is not so purely Historical but that it is perplex'd with dispute For it is peculiar to this Author that when he should reason he barely affirms as if he was writing an History but when it is his business to relate being conscious that the stream of Autority is against him he is forc'd to dispute it out as if he was proving a Problem But his arguing is such as the Cause would bear and his History such as it necessarily requires The former has gain'd him no great credit with the Men of Reason and this I doubt will little recommend him to the Honest and Ingenuous But I forbear to prejudge the cause and desire nothing may be farther charg'd on him than it is prov'd I pretend to no Critical skill in the History of the Reformation and I am beholden to the Author that I need it not His prevarications lie so open that a Novice in History may
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
of it was allow'd to have no power in Causes Ecclesiastical Nor is the Clergy which here reverses repeals and ejects less liable to Exceptions For the first change was not of Religion but of the Pastors and the Reforming Bishops were ejected before the Reformation c See them reckon'd by this Author §. 53. Thirteen Prelates we find depriv'd to make room for a reversing Hierarchy and of d Bur. V. 2. p. 276. Sixteen-thousand Inferior Clergy-men as they were then computed 12000 turn'd out for committing the unpardonable Sin of Matrimony As for the Autority of the State i. e. the Parliament it was none we were told in the 2 former Reigns and sure it had no advantage in this if it be remembred how a Burn. V. 2. p. 252. Elections were manag'd and how predominant Spanish Gold was The 4 next Paragraphs give us an account of the Restitution of things made in Q. Mary's days § 49 50.51.52 which I allow and only desire the Reader to carry a long with him what has been hinted of the manner of it § 53 Paragraph the 53d questions whether this Clergy in Q. Mary's days were a lawfull Clergy §. 54. ad §. 65. And the succeeding pages endeavour their Vindication The Bishops ejected by Q. Mary he has numbred from Fox but least we should have too much truth together has took care to qualifie it with his Paratheses Fox mentioning Hooper ejected from Worcester it is added he might have said from Glocester too for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the 6th 's time held both these Sees together in Commendam Our Author might have spar'd this Observation from Sanders had he consulted the b Burn. V. 2. App. p. 396. Appendix to the History of the Reformation where this lie of Sanders is confuted Hooper was first made Bishop of Glocester which before King Henry the 8th 's time had been part of the Bishoprick of Worcester In King Edward's time these Sees were reunited so that Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had for some Years been divided into two He only enjoy'd the revenue of Glocester For Worcester Latimer for Non-conformity to the Six Articles had been ejected out of it or for fear resign'd it yet for what reason I know not could not in King Edward's time be restor'd to it This again is a transcript from the inexhaustible a Sand. p. 181. Sanders Latimer b Bur. V. 2. App. p. 385. 392. Hist V. 2. p. 95. was not ejected but freely resign'd his Bishoprick upon passing the Six Articles with which he could not comply with a good Conscience In King Edward's time the House of Commons interpos'd to repossess him but he refus'd to accept of any Preferment Taylor was remov'd from Lincoln by death not by the Queen as appears from Fox p. 1282. Q. Mary's c Bur. V. 2. Coll p 257. Commission for displacing the Bishops is extant amongst which Taylor is one Fox positively saith He was depriv'd He saith indeed in the place cited that he died but not that his Death was before his Deprivation Having given us this Catalogue of the ejected thus adulterated with his false mixtures he desires us in Vindication of the just Autority of Q. Mary's Clergy to take notice That the Ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's days was not the First but Second Ejection the first being made in King Edward's time when Gardiner Bonner Tonstal Day Heath Vesy were remov'd from their Sees But here we have a Supernumerary put in to enhance the Catalogue Vesy d Godw. Catal. of Bishops was not depriv'd but did resign His Character in History is so scandalous that he ought to have been depriv'd and therefore it had been pardonable to have guess'd that he was but it was unlucky to assert it Probably he saith some others were remov'd from their Sees To which it may be enough to answer probably not I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any An Accurate Writer in his Sense is one who favours his own Cause and is careful to insert a necessary Supplement of his own where the History wants it His admir'd Sanders is in this Sense accurate enough but not so accurate as our Author could have wish'd Nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbring the change of Clergy under King Edward as he doth that under Q. Mary As for the Bishops which are the Clergy here meant Fox mentions the Deprivation of all that were depriv'd and it is because He had not this Author's diligence that he named no more Something may be conjectur'd from those general words of his For the most part the Bishops were chang'd and the dumb Prelate compel'd to give place to others that would preach Mr. Fox was no great Master of Style nor rigorous in his Expressions from which our Author would make advantage But it is a sign his cause is desperate when he is forc'd thus to build upon empty conjectures The Deprivation of Bishops is not a matter of so little importance that our Historians should take no notice of it but amongst them all We find no more Depriv'd then have been mention'd Dr. Heylin and Dr. Burnet have been very exact in this particular but they have not arriv'd to our Author's diligence and accuracy He must therefore be content with the ejection of only 5 Bishops in King Edwardâ—s time which he promises us to prove not lawful and consequently the ejected justly restor'd and the introduc'd justly ejected in Q. Mary's time The ejection he proves not lawful Because 1st Not done by Lawful Autority 2ly Nor for a Lawful Cause § 55 1st Not done by lawful Autority Because the Bishops being tried for Matters Ecclesiastical their Judges were the King's Commissioners But neither is it true at least not prov'd that they were tried for Matters Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that the King's Commissioners amongst whom was the Metropolitan were not proper Judges in such Causes as has been prov'd by the Animadverter Nor can the Autority of such Commissioners tho' unlawful be declin'd by this Writer who presently will prove the Bishops in Q. Mary's time ejected by lawful Judges Who yet were no other then that Queen's Commissioners So that there is in this one Period such a complication of falshood as nothing can match but what follows concerning the Causes of their Deprivation The Causes he supposeth to be all the Articles of Popery as distinct to the Religion Reform'd Their not owning the King's Supremacy Non-conformity to his Injunctions Not-relinquishing the Use of former Church-Liturgies Not conforming to the New-Service and other Innovations He supposes he has by this time confirm'd his Autority with the Reader so far that he will credit his bare assertion without vouching any History But it is impossible He could have falsified so grosly had not an implicite Faith in Sanders given him over to a Spirit of delusion Tonstal
extirpate Heretics upon pain of being themselves extirpated and if they will not be active must be passive It is farther observ'd that Protestant Princes as well as Catholic have thought fit to execute this Law upon Heretics He instances in Joan of Kent and George Paris burnt in Edward the Sixth's days But these suffer'd for Impieties directly against the Creed a B. V. 2. p. 111. Joan of Kent for denying that Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary b Ibid p. 112. George Paris for denying that he was God We have King Edward's c Ibid tears recorded which he shed upon signing the warrant for Joan of Kent's execution but I have not read of any tears shed upon that Occasion by Q. Mary Some other Anabaptists condemn'd and recanting were enjoyn'd to bear their Faggots But d Ibid. p. 111. the Opinions of these Anabaptists would have made an Anticreed to that of the Apostles and bearing the Faggot is ill oppos'd to the cruelty of that Reign when e Cranmer's case recanting did not exempt from burning In Henry the 8th 's time Cromwel pronounc'd Sentence on Lambert to be burnt I never read before that King Henry was a Protestant Prince Arch-Bishop Cranmer committed to the Counter Thomas Dob a Master of Arts who also died in prison The Consequence is that Protestant Princes burn Heretics In Q. Elizabeth's time Lewes and Hammond were burnt for Heretics Hammond's Impieties against God and his Christ were such as a Cambd. Hist of Eliz. p. 235. Edit Lond. 1675. Mr. Cambden will not mention but desires they may be buried in Oblivion Lewis was an Heretic of the same Magnitude Hacket was executed for Heresy and Blasphemy b Ful. Hist Book 9 â—h p. 205. Such blasphemies as might have been utter'd by a faln Angel Coppin and Thocker were hang'd for publishing Brown's book against the Common-prayer But c Stow's Chron. Q. Eliz. p. 696. that book full of Sedition against the State In King James's time Bartholomew Legate was burnt for an Heretic But d See his Opinions Full. l. 10. p. 62. he an Arrius Redivivus As for the Statute of King James An. 3. Jac. 4. c. it does not punish the reconcil'd as Heretics but as Traytors The Crime there reputed Treason is with-drawing the Natural Obedience from the Prince and none can suffer by that Act who takes the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Had the Writ de Haeretico comburendo lain as quiet as this Act We should not have reflected with so much horror on the Cruelty of the C. of Rome This instancing in a Statute made only in terrorem and never put in Execution tho' the demerits of some Apostates have been sufficiently provoking would tempt one to look back into the last Century and review the Treasons and Rebellions which extorted the making of that Statute but I forbear to pursue this Topick least too warm a zeal against the disloyalty of that party be it self interpreted dis-loyal § 66 Having shew'd us the Protestant's judgment concerning the justness of burning Hereticks he next gives us his own Sentiments The ignorant Laity and illiterate Clergy he in his great mercy rescues from the Faggot and condemns only to Poverty and Prisons This in Spain or Italy had been a great Act of grace but He might be sure few of our Laity or Clergy could plead the benefit of it The Fathers of the Church and Learned Sons of it are not mention'd in this Indulgence and there seems to be no reserve for them Indeed He had stretcht his kindness too far in favour of the Haereticis credentes and as if he repented confesses some of them to have been extremely arrogant and ignorant It provokes his Indignation that Mechanics should dispute with Bishops But the advantage these Mechanics had in the cause made amends for the imparity of the Advocates And after all Bonner and the Miller were not such unequal Disputants as He would perswade Us. They relied he saith on the uncertainty of their own Judgment But this Protestant certainty such as has been prov'd to rise as high as the Popish Infallibility He is not satisfied that the Relations of these disputes are pen'd with Integrity Indeed the reasonings of the Roman Prelates and Doctors are such as One would be apt to think them mis-related but when I read our Modern Controvertists I begin to have a great respect for their Fore-fathers The next Paragraphs tell us §. 67.68 that if the Ejection of these Bishops were lawful then the Introduction of others will be so too tho' 1. Whilst they living 2ly Without the Metropolitan's consent But I am so well satisfied he has not prov'd the lawfulness of the Ejection that I shall not dispute with him concerning the Consequences of it Our Author him-self who doth not use to be scrupulous seems here unsatisfied with his own performances For being conscious he has not prov'd Q. Mary's Clergy lawful § 69 He has another hold to which he makes his last retreat He is willing to justifie Q. Mary's re-establishment of the former Religion even without her own Clergy from the Autority of Superior Synods This he knows is part of our Plea but with this advantage on our side that Whereas he will have the Prince oblig'd to execute the Church's Canons without Inferior license We think him much more concern'd to provide for the Execution of Christ's Laws without such consent of the Clergy What has been said in this Chapter cannot want a Recapitulation The ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was to have been prov'd unlawful because for an unlawful Cause and by an unlawful Judge the ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's time lawful because for a lawful Cause and by a lawful Judge the Judges in both cases were the same viz. the Commissioners of each Prince the Causes in neither are rightly assign'd and of those which are assign'd Nothing is said to prove their respective lawfulness or unlawfulness This is the great Argument of the Chapter to repeat all the fals-hoods in it would be to transcribe it A Reply to his 6th Chapter THat the former Supremacy was reassum'd by Q. Elizabeth §. 70.71 is confest Thus much is said in the Title of this Chapter and no more in 3 pages of it Some bounds of this Supremacy are own'd to be assign'd by Protestant Writers § 72 Who therefore are wrong'd by this Author when they are represented as Advocates of an unlimited Supremacy The Qualifications by us urg'd are taken from the Queen's Title her Admonition the words of the 37th Article and the Proviso in the first Act of Q. Elizabeth § 73 Now as to his Rational Reply to the Title that Head and Governor in a due sense are Synonymous I allow but because the Style of Head gave Offence the changing of it into a word which was less obnoxious to cavil § 74 was material As to the Admonition it has been observ'd
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