Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates And of this Act such use was made tho possibly beyond the true intention of it that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below § 145. Which saith he being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which Estate they have continued without any legal interruption from that time to this Thus He. Now to go on Consequently we find in 2. Edw 6.1 c. the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer c therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. And in Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons who shall offend against this Act and Statute Which Clause by vertue of this Act and the like implies that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence or ought to excommunicate in all matters wherein the King and Parliament command it Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act forementioned p. 44. § 26. 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction there ascribed to the King or Queen involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication as well as others not for the King to exercise this himself but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute or not execute it so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King contrary to the Second and Third Thesis And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws may not correct what they judge Heresies Errors Vices c without the Kings consent had thereto See the Acts set down before § 31 32 33 c. it is but reasonable that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent for not obeying such Laws or for being thought guilty of such Crimes And this is the reason I suppose of Dr. Heylins Observation Hist of Reform p. 94. That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped that it was scarce able to fly abroad the Sentence of Excommunication wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward and of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England § 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3 and 4. Edw. 6.11 c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons half Seculars to be nominated by him as was done in Henry the Eighth's days in 35. Hen. 8.16 c. 27. Hen. 8.15 c. 25.19 c. who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church and these reformed Laws only established by a major part of them and published by the Kings Proclamation thence forward to stand in force The Statute runs thus Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal therefore you see the Statutes concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12 c. above-mentioned yet the same as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes having not of long time been put in ure nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted c that the Kings Majesty shall from henceforth during Three years have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy whereof Four to be Bishops and Sixteen of the Temporalty whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used and to gather order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought to his Majesty his said Council and them or the more part of them convenient to be used practiced or set forth within this his Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall by vertue of this present Act be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and no other Any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding § 42 Again we find in the same Act Six Prelates and Six others such as the King should nominate delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests and this devised by them and set forth under the Great Seal to be used and none other The words are these Forasmuch as that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties dominions some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests be it therefore Enacted that such Form as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law by the King to be appointed or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used and none other any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Here the King and Parliament assume power to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church and by their Delegates to constitute and by their sole Act to authorize new without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome and his Authority Power and Jurisdiction And I shall never consent nor
Synodical or by whatsoever name they shall be called unless the King by his Royal assent command them to make promulge and execute the same See for this the Preface of the Act of Parliament Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth 19. c. where it is said that the Clergy of the Realm of England had not only acknowledged that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ but also submitting themselves to the Kings Majesty had promised in verbo Sacerdotii that they would never from henceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called unless the Kings most Royal assent may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same But they gave up also their power to execute any old Canons of the Church without the Kings consent had first thereto as appears by what follows in the next Section The whole Debate with all the traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared herein saith Dr. Heylin are specified at large in the Records of Convocation 1532 which were well worthy the viewing Now if the First and Second Thesis above-named stand good this Act of the Clergy is utterly unlawful For by this the Prince hath authority to hinder the Clergy from altering or reforming any former setled Doctrine in his Kingdome As King Charles also in his Declaration before the 39 Articles manifesteth that he will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree from the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England any varying i. e by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation In what case then had the Reformation been if former Princes in the same language as King Charles had used this pretended lawful power in prohibiting Bishops c. to attempt enact promulge c any thing contrary to the then here setled Popish Doctrines To advance yet somewhat further In the Preface of the same Act of Parliament the Clergy are also said which thing neither Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond § 23. nor Dr. Fern have sufficiently weighed in their Relations of the English Reformation to have humbly besought the Kings Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial or Synodal which be thought to be prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of Thirty Two Persons Sixteen of the Temporalty and Sixteen of the Clergy of the Realm to be chosen and appointed by the Kings Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c shall stand in power Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal not only such as were the sole Constitutions and Canons of the Synods of this Nation which the like Synods may lawfully correct but such as were also the Canons of superior Synods which the Synods of this Nation could not lawfully annul This appears both by the practice of their abrogating and reforming of several Canons that were such nay I think such were all that were reformed and also by the Tenent See below § 28. Statute 25. Hen. 8.21 c. that all the Constitutions made only by mans authority are by the King being supream in his Dominions as he thinks fit mutable To stand with the Laws of God therefore any Canon tho it were not against the Kings Prerogative or Law of the Realm yet if thought by these Judges not to stand with the Laws of God might be annulled Shall be thought by the more part of them Therefore an Act of the Laity in these Spiritual matters if obtaining the consent only of one Clergy-man tho all the rest oppose nay if obtaining the consent of the King tho all the Clergy-Commissioners oppose stands good as being an Act of the major part § 25 In this Act of the Clergy if it be supposed a Synodical request of the whole Clergy and not only of some persons thereof more addicted to the Kings Inclinations and if Canons and Constitutions here be not restrained only to those that seem some way to intrench upon the rights of Civil Power or to some Ecclesiastical external Rites and Ceremonies I see not but that the Clergy here gives away to the King and to the Laity at least if assisted with one or two or indeed without any Clergy their Synodical power to conclude and determine matters of Faith and to order the Government of the Church as they shall think best since all the former Canons and Constitutions Synodal are not about matters of External Rite and Ceremony but some doubtless concerning matters of Faith and such Christian Practices and Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline as are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and necessarily involve Faith of all which Canons the 32 are now made Judges what stands with Gods Law or what is contrary thereto and the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum drawn up partly in Henry the Eighth's partly in Edward the Sixth's time by such Commissioners Reprinted 1640 is found to meddle not only with Canons repugnant to Civil Government or with Rites and Ceremonies but with matters of the Divine Offices and Sacraments Heresies c as appears in the very Titles of that Book Now such Act of the Clergy must needs be most unjust and unlawful if the First or Second or Seventh Thesis above-recited stand good § 26 But whatever sense these words in the Preface of the Act were or may be extended to I do not think that the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine Truth By which authority Princes might as they also did change Religion in this Kingdome at their pleasure but imagined that as they obliged themselves to do nothing without the Kings consent so neither in these matters especially should the King do any thing without theirs as may be gathered First by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supream recited before Secondly by the Declaration of the Bishops against the Pope See Fox p. 971. wherein they alledge against him the Third Canon of the Second General Council Enacting ut controversiae ab Episcopis Provinciarum ubi ortae sunt terminentur that all Causes shall be finished and determined within the Province where the same began and that by the Bishops ef the same Province urged also by Bishop Tonstal in his Answer to Cardinal Poole And Thirdly By several of the said Bishops and particularly by this Tonstal's and Gardiner's of whom Dr. Fern saith that none could have written better against the
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
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
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
repugning as they might well against the late spoyl of the Church-goods taken away only by commandment of the higher powers without any law or order of Justice and without request or consent of them to whom they did belong And Calvin in a Letter to Arch-Bishop Cranmer written about An. Dom. 1551. giving a reason why the English Church was so ill stored with good Pastors hath these words Vnum apertum obstaculnm esse intelligo quod praedae expositi sunt Ecclesiae reditus So early you see even together with the first dawning of the Reformation began that Sacriledge to be committed on some Bishopricks which our days have seen accomplished on the rest Lay menders of Religion ordinarily terminating in these two things the advancing of their carnal Liberty and temporal Estates § 140 In defacing of Images By vertue of such Supremacy He caused to be removed out of Churches and to be defaced and destroyed all Images of Saints Concerning which Reformation his Council writes to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in this stile We have thought good to signify unto you that his Highnesse's pleasure with the advice and consent of us the Lord Protector and the rest of the Council is that immediately upon the sight hereof you shall give order that all the Images remaining in any Church within your Diocess be taken away and also by your Letters shall signify unto the rest of the Bishops within your Province this his Highnesse's pleasure c. Fox p. 1183. See likewise Stat. 3. and 4. Edw. 6.10 c. This he did when as the second Nicene Council not only had allowed but recommended the use of them But he proceeded also further than this and declared the worshiping and veneration of any such Images or Relicks to be repugnant to Gods word and unlawful superstitious idolatrous See the 22 of the 42 Articles and Article to Winchester 11 and the Doctrine of his Homilies § 141 By vertue of such Supremacy He imposed An. Dom. 1547 a Book of Homilies not approved by any Synod before nor after till 1552 if then in which Book were stated several Controversies of Divinity See Article 11 of the 42 referring to these Homilies for the stating of Justification ex solâ fide the King forbidding the Clergy to preach any Doctrine repugnant to the same Homilies under pain of being silenced or otherwise punished § 142 â—â—injoyning administration of the Communion in both â—inds See before § 108. Winchester Articles 15. Fox p. 1255. By vertue of such Supremacy He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion to the people in both kinds Stat. 1. Ed. 6.1 c. Coâ—cil Constant 13. sess See before §. 118. contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance and without any preceding confutation of a National Synod and notwithstanding the former late decree concerning the non-necessity thereof by the same National Synod in Henry the Eighth's days in the second of the Six Articles § 143 In suppressieg the former Church Liungies Ordiaals and other Rituals By vertue of such Supremacy He caused to be removed and suppressed the former Church Liturgies and Rituals for the publick Prayers for the celebration of the Communion and other Sacraments for the Ordinations of the Clergy See Fox p. 1211. The King saith he with the body and state of the Privy Council then being directed out his Letters of request and strait commandment to the Bishops in their Diocess to cause and warn all Parsons Curates c. to bring in and deliver up all Antiphoners Missals Grailes Processionals Manuals Legends Pies Ordinals and all other Books of Service the having whereof might be any let to the Service now set forth in English charging also and commanding all such as should be found disobedient in this behalf to be committed unto ward Saying in the Articles sent to Winchester That the Mass was full of abuses Fox p. 1235. and had very few things of Christ's institution besides the Epistle Gospel and the Lord's Prayer and the words of the Lord's Supper that the rest for the more part were invented and devised by Bishops of Rome and by other men of the same sort i. e. by Ecclesiastical Constitution and therefore were justly taken away by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm this being the perswasion of those times That the King as Supreme might change as to him seemed good any thing established only by humane tho it were Church authority And see Stat. 3 4. Edw. 6.10 c. Whereas the King hath of late set forth and established an uniform Order of Common-Prayer and whereas in the former Service-Books are things corrupt untrue vain and superstitious Be it enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled that all Missals Ordinals c. heretofore used for Service of the Church shall be utterly abolished extinguished c. § 144 And injetting uâ— new Forms of celebrating the Communion But you must observe that all was not done at once or at the first but by certain steps and degrees For Example The Form of administring the Communion suffered three Alterations or Reformations one after another the later still departing further from the ancient Form used in the Church than the former First the King assembled certain Bishops and others at Windsor in the first year of his Reign such as he pleased to appoint to compile a new Form of celebrating the Communion according to the Rule saith Fox p. 1184 of the Scriptures of God and first usage of the Primitive Church Yet the Bishops at this time so ordered and moderated the matter which perhaps may be the reason of those words in Fox see before § 125. See Heylin Hist. of K. Edw. p. 57. That the Protector at Windsor in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops that the whole office of the Mass should proceed as formerly in the Latine even to the very end of the Canon and the receiving of the Sacrament by the Priest himself Which done the Priest is appointed to begin the exhortation in English We be come together at this time Dearly Beloved c. as it is in the present English Liturgy After which follows also the disswasion of great offenders impenitent from receiving the General Confession and Absolution the Prayer We presume not c. and so the administration of the Eucharist to the people in both kinds The words of the Rubrick in that first Order of the Communion reprinted at London 61 are these The time of the Communion of the people shall be immediately after that the Priest shall have received the Sacrament without the varying of any other Rite or Ceremony in the Mass until other order shall be provided But as heretofore usually the Priest hath done with the Sacrament of the Body to prepare bless and consecrate so much as will serve the people so it shall yet continue still after the same manner
a Bur. V. 2. App. p. 390. 391. was depriv'd for Misprision of Treason He was a firm Friend of the Protector and so well satisfied with the first changes which were made that he is complain'd of by Gardiner as well as Cranmer in a Letter which he wrote to the Protector b Ibid. Bonner and Gardiner were depriv'd for not Preaching up the King's Autority to be the same under Age as after which is a point purely Secular and relating to the Constitutions of this Government c Bur. Hist V. 2. p. 70. Gardiner in the Sermon for an Omission in which he was depriv'd exprest himself very fully concerning the Pope's Supremacy as justly abolish'd and the Suppression of Monasteries and Chantries approv'd of the King's proceedings thought Images might have been well us'd but yet might be taken away approv'd of Communion in both kinds of the abolition of Masses and new Order of Communion asserted indeed the Corporal Presence but that was not yet declar'd against a Bur. V. 2. p. 121. Bonner complied so easily with every Order of Council that it was not easie to find any complaint against him b Bur. V. 2. App. p. 390. Heath and Day complied with all the changes that were made in the first 4 Years of this King's reign and both preach'd and wrote for them They were depriv'd by Lay-Delegates in the 5th Year of King Edward and my Author hence guesses it was for some Offence against the State After this account I need not be sollicitous to examine Whether the Causes assign'd by our Author were just Causes of deprivation or not having prov'd that they were not at all the Causes As for the Ejection of the rest of King Edward's Bishops by Q. Mary this he saith will be justifiable if done 1st For a lawful Cause 2ly By a lawful Judge which therefore he assigns The Causes here he supposes to be all the Articles of Reformation as distinct to Popery viz. Marriage of Clergy denying the Papal and asserting the Regal Supremacy accusing the Church-Service of Idolatry denying the corporal presence in the Eucharist or that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice c. This again he asserts upon his own Autority which had need to be great since it contradicts all others Of the Bishops ejected by Q. Mary besides c Bur. Hist V. 2. p. 247. those who made room for the re-entrance of the former Possessors not unjustly ejected so far as has yet appeâ—â—â—d and therefore unjustly reintroduc'd d Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 256. Four of them Holgate Farrars Bird and Bush were ejected for Marriage e Ibid. p. 257. Three others Taylor Hooper and Harley were depriv'd by Delegates who were empower'd to declare their Sees void as they were already void a Bur. V. 2. p. 275. Barlow was made to resign b Bur. V. 2. p. 257. Cranmer the only remaining Bishop in the Catalogue was esteem'd Arch-Bishop till he was degraded for Heresie so that he indeed was depriv'd of his See and of his Life together for the Causes alledg'd Now as for those which were ejected for Marriage it was warranted by the Law of God the Autority of the Primitive Church the Statutes of the Realm and the Synodical Act of the English Clergy Nor is it to any purpose which our Author urges that these Acts of the Parliament and Synod were repeal'd since a repeal could only abrogate the Law for the future not void it from the beginning it might make that Marriage should be not that it should have been unlawful it might legitimate the proceedings against these Bishops if they retain'd their Wives not warrant the deprivation of them for what was past Nor is it more material which is here urg'd that the Laws which legitimated such Marriage were void in their making as being contrary to the Canons of Superior Councils untill it be proved that those Councils which prohibited such Marriage were our lawful Superiors and if so had power to lay such a Yoke upon their Subjects For these Councils he refers me to the Discourse of Celibacy and for a Reply I refer him to the Answer to it As for the next 3 Bishops Taylor Hooper and Harley their Judges were not to seek for a Cause who had power to declare their Sees void as they were already void But let us at last suppose the Causes of their Deprivation the same as are by him alleg'd as it is confest they were the Causes for which Cranmer was depriv'd and for which He and others were burnt Yet whether these were just Causes of Deprivation or not doth not depend upon this Man 's confident Assertion but on the truth of the thing It seems something arrogant thus Magisterially in one breath to condemn all those Doctrines of the Reformation which have hitherto stood the shock against all their Arguments and their Faggots their Bellarmines and their Bonners The Reformers for some Years have been writing and dying in Justification of these Doctrines and doth this Author at last think that the very naming of them is Evidence enough that those Bishops who were ejected for their adherence to them were rightfully ejected as to the Cause But it is enough with these Men to condemn an Opinion that it is not their own For as for the truth of particular Doctrines whether there be a Trinity whether Christ and the Holy Ghost be God or the like these we are told a Guide in Controv. Preface are things that trouble none who hath once undergone the Mortification of dethroning his own Judgment and hath captivated it to the Unity of the Church's Faith But as they were regularly ejected as to the cause so they were as to the Judg they being not ejected he saith by the Queen's Commissioners but by the delegates of the Western Patriarch This not to speak too bluntly is a b Book of Educ p. 294. Edit Ox. 1677. Gasconade with a Witness Had not the World been presented with a Collection of Records such an Assertion as this would have been more tolerable but to tell us they were not depriv'd by the Queen's Commissioners when we can have recourse to the c Bur. Vol. 2. Coll. p. 256. 257. Original Commissions by which they were depriv'd became one who writes as if he had no reputation to lose But the Judges were to be prov'd Canonical the Delegates of the Prince had before been affirm'd to be Uncanonical and this being a knot impossible to be untied the Knight-Errant boldly cuts it § 65 Having prov'd that these Bishops were regularly ejected as to the cause and as to the Judge the next Question is whether they were regularly burnt too As for the burning of Heretics it is to be consider'd He saith that the Secular Laws not Ecclesiastical appoint it and the Secular Magistrates not Ecclesiastical execute it This amounts to no more than that Kings are the Pope's Executioners they are requir'd to
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.
them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordinations of inferiour Clergy to their superiour Rites Liturgies c. As for the rights of the Secular power he layeth down this Rule p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are All actions civil all publick violations of Justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Infliction of Censures by Excommunication or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory i. e as he saith before to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy or some other way abett the censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law employed for regiment and cure of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth it before p. 239 is the Kings And lastly p. 241. he saith that the Catholick Bishops in time of the Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exteriour Jurisdiction and Power i. e the Royal. See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded p. 61. All which our Kings saith he assume to themselves is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it i. e of that regiment and p. 63 He comments thus on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see the Power is political the Sword is political all is political Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it And p. 92 he saith We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them without taking away I hope any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes And p. 119 We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them laws he means such Laws for observance of which Secular coaction might be used the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needful Doth not this Bishop mean here that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings dominions and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority only that they can use no coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments in the execution of them without his But see below § 22. The Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation See more of this § 35. N. 2. And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith It is coercive and compulsory and corrobatory Power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the external Court of the Church Why or under what pretence to prevent saith he the oppression of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquility of the Common wealth not therefore to examine what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to Gods word for this Princes are to learn from those Courts which belongs to Sovereign Princes Thus he Lastly see the Kings last Paper in the Isle of Wight p 3. where it is said That tho the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over mens persons or estates no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure Yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government so Christian men do still Princes and all they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons in receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining witnesses judging of crimes against Gods law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper enjoyning Penancies upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. Now I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Canons the same Church Discipline casting out of the Church or Excommunication c. they are and must be allowed still in Christian States being things which as Bishop Carleton saith Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done and these are means absolutely necessary Convening for the making of Canons Knowing the Fact for Excommunication therefore in case the Christian Prince will not call them they may assemble themselves when the Church's necessities require such Canons and when the Christian Secular Courts will not they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency but this in order to Church punishments only When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathenism i. e do these things without their leave against their prohibitions All the Plea that a Secular State subjecting it self to the Church can make for medling in such Spiritual affairs seems to be this that the Church shall not be troubled now as formerly to do all because the State with its more awing power will do something for it Which
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
he discovered the King's Affections settled on Anne Bullen one inclined to Lutheranisme See Fox p. 988. 1036. he proves averse now to what he had formerly advanced and delays the decision of the Divorce so long till at last the Pope moved thereto by the Emperor Nephew to Queen Katherine did upon her appeal revoke the cause to Rome and inhibited the Legats Proceedings 'T is said also that some others of the chief of the English Clergy See Fox p. 96. and 962. Edit 1610. whether it were conscientiously or out of the same dis-affection of their's to Anne Bullen I cannot tell much disliked the same Divorce § 18 The King for this much displeased with both Cardinal and Clergy first accuseth the Cardinal to have incurred a Premunire for having exercised his Legantine Office in his Dominions without the Kings Licence contrary to a Statute made in the days of King Richard the Second Yet had the King formerly been pleased to appear before him in Court as the Popes Legate and his delegated Judge together with Campegius in the Cause of the Kings Divorce Upon this he is condemned See Godw. Annal. An. Reg. Henr. 21. and all his Estate seized on by the King Tho the Cardinal pleaded That it was well known to his Majesty that he would not presume to execute his power Legantine before the King had been pleased to ratify it with his Royal Assent given under his Seal which notwithstanding he could not produce that and all his Goods being taken from him See Godwin's Annals p. 107. who also p. 119. saith See Godw. Annal. p. 107 and p. 119. that it was certain that Wolsey was Licensed to exercise his Authority Legantine § 19 After this fall of Wolsey Next a Bill was given up in the Parliament held 1530. and the Summe demanded from the Clergy as conspiring with the Cardinal of an 100000 l. Charges that the King had been put to to obtain so many Instruments from Forreign Universities which had decided this matter From which Universities the King is said to have procured their Suffrages for his Divorce not without seeing several of them with great Summs of Money Concerning which see the Testimonies of several Authors produced by Sanders p. 49. c. Some of those he quotes saying that they had Money offered to themselves some that they were Eye-witnesses of it received by others Tho with your leave to make here a little digression touching this Controversy these Universities at least some of them considered only the point of the unlawfulness of one marrying his Brothers Wife when such former Marriage was consummate by carnal knowing of her See the Determinations of Paris and others in Hollinsh p. 924. putting in the Clause so that the Marriage be consummate Without considering that circumstance whether Katherine was carnally known by her first Husband which was denied by the Queen and her Advocates Prince Arthur being thought somewhat infirm and being but Fifteen years old when he Married her and dying shortly after You may see if you have the curiosity what is said for the consummation of that Marriage in Fox Mon. p. 958. Edit 1610. against it in Sanders de Schism Ang l. 1. l. p. 40. Yet tho the former Marriage had been consummate many Learned Men of that Age of several Nations amongst whom were Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Tonstall Bishop of Duresme whom you may find diligently reckoned up to the number of almost Twenty by Sanders de Schism Angli 1. l. p. 42. 53 54. writ Books in Justification that the Marriage of Henry with Katherine was a matter dispensable For tho this was agreed on all sides That Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impediment is jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt Yet some of these Authors held first that all the Impediments named in the Mosaical Law were not dirimentia conjugium jure divino naturali which only now oblige Christians and then secondly that in matter of Affinity only primus gradus rectae lineae as between Father and his Sons Wife and not primus gradus lineae collateralis or transversae as between the Brother and his Brothers Wife was such an Impediment as did dirimere conjugium jure divino naturali and indispensably Others gathered the Law in Levit. 18.16 dispensable in some cases from the express dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5 Now the preservation of Peace between the two Kingdomes of England and Spain is a motive for such dispensation much more considerable than that mentioned in Deut. the preservation of the name and honor of the deceased See Card. Cajetan de Conjug Reg. Angl. 6. c. And for the general judgment of the Learned in this matter and particularly of the Universities after you have read the Story in Sanders p. 49 50 51. concerning them and especially concerning Oxford as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert Hist Hen. 8. p. 324 325. See what the Act of Parliament 1. Mar. 1. c. saith of them viz. That this Marriage betwixt Henry and Katherine was solemnized by the deliberate and mature consideration and consent of the best and most notable men in Learning in those days of Christendome That the perverse affections of some a very few persons for their own singular glory and vain reputation pretended the same Marriage to be against the word of God and to this intent caused the Seals as well of certain Universities in Italy and France to be gotten as it were for a testimony by the corruption with Money of a few light persons Scholars of the said Universities as also the Seals of the Universities of this Realm to be obtained by sinister working secret threatnings c. And that Arch-Bishop Cranmer in giving Sentence that the said Matrimony was unlawful took his Foundation partly upon his own unadvised judgment of the Scripture joyning therewith the pretended testimonies of the said Universities and partly upon bare and most untrue conjectures i. e concerning the consummation of the former Marriage of Katherine with Arthur And see what Lord Hâ—rbert delivers of the hesitancy of the German Protestant Divines being several times and that long after the Divorce made requested thereto by King Henry to declare the Divorce lawful p. 448. and 379. where he saith That for the Approbation of the Divorce proposed to the German Divines Luther Justus Jonas Philip Melancthon and others they delayed to approve it and the King was judiciously advised by his Agents from thence not to require any thing of them which would be too hard to grant I have made this Digression to shew you the diversity of opinions which was in this difficult matter that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgment and how the several interests of several times justified and condemned the same thing Now to return to our matter in hand § 19 The foresaid Summe of 100000 l. spent
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
a Lay Vicar-General and p. 20 That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use than afterward in times well ballanced and established meaning those following times wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince And as for these days of King Edward what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people but the new Divines of Edward acknowledged and enstated in the King and Parliament may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper when in Prison sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary Episcopis Decanis wherein he cites them before the High Court of Parliament â—ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies i. e for so far as any man can be Judge In this Letter after having urged Deut. 17.8 because of the mention made there of a Judge besides the Priest Voâ— omnes saith he obtestor ut causam hanc vel aliam quamcunqne ob religionem ortam inter nos vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro excelso senatu sese religiosè animo submisso judicio authoritati Verbi Dei subjiciat Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat ut palam e. c lites inter nos componantur idque coram competenti judice Quid hoc est igitur Quo jure contenditis Vultis nostri causae nostrae testes accusatores judices esse Nos tantùm legem evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus ut coram competenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium Non vos fugit quomodo publicè palam in facie ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni in summâ curià Parliamenti veritas verbi Dei per fidos doctos pios ministros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit Quae quocunque titulo tempore universalitate splenduit ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari per proceres heroas ac doctos hujus regni erat mandatum statim evanuit c. Here that Bishop professeth when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion not the Synod but the Parliament the competent Judge therein and urgeth if I rightly understand him the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgment which as it was then affected would have cast him It seemeth Not by that he faith Tantum legem Dei in causâ religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him a Prisoner for this Controversy By the Clergy's No. By the Parliament's No for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter By the Scripture then its self But this is urged by both sides to speak for them and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament than it did before So that in nominating no other final Judge the Bishops Request here in summe is that his Cause may never be tryed by any Judge CHAP. V. King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary § 48 AFter King Edward's Death in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign a Princess otherwise principled The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Popes Supremacy re-acknowledged all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church in innovating the Forms of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments of Ordination of Church Rites and Discipline and Jurisdiction in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and composing new ones All was now by an equal Authority of Prince Clergy and State reversed repealed ejected and Religion only rendred much poorer as for Temporals put into the same course which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth before a new Wife or a new Title was by him thought on So that any new Reformation to come afterward must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure being now by the like Authority defaced and thrown down § 49 This Restitution of things made in Queen Mary's days will chiefly appear to you in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap where the ancient Form of Divine Service c used in Henry the Eighths days is restored as being the Service saith the Act which we and our Fore-fathers found in this Church of England left unto us by the Authority of the Catholick Church And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church and several Acts of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws c or introduced new Forms of Divine Service of Election and Ordination of Bishops and Priests are repealed And in 1 and 2. Mar. 6. chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Hereticks first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again and the Statutes to this purpose which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy are revived § 50 And in 1 and 2. Mar. 8. c where the Pope's Supremacy is re-acknowledged when also as Fox observes p. 1296. the Queen's Stile concerning Supremacy was changed and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted as also Bonner Bishop of London being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Arch-Bishop did omit in his Writs to the Clergy Authoritate Illustrissimae c legitime suffulttus In which Statute also the whole Nation by their Representative in Parliament ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism repealing the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's time against the Popes Supremacy and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy set down before § 22. and § 23 whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased to reform Errors Heresies c i e. to do the Offices of the Clergy In which Statute also the Clergy in a distinct Supplication beginning Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati c calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights Jurisdictions Liberties taken from her by the injustice of former times The words are Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus
pro suâ pietate efficere dignentur ut ea quae ad jurisdictionem nostram libertatem Ecclesiasticam pertinent sine quibus debitum nostri pastoralis officii curae animarum nobis commissae exercere non possumus nobis superiorum temporum injuriâ ablata restituantur ea nobis Ecclesiae perpetuò illaesa salva permaneant ut omnes leges quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem libertatem Ecclesiasticam tollunt seu quovis modo impediunt abrogentur ad honorem Dei c. Which Rights how welcome they were to them when now regained in Queen Mary's days we may guess from their former complaint in the beginning of King Edward's days where we see how much they grieved when they saw them lost Sanders 2. l. p. 244. adds also that at this time Singuli Episcopi uno tantum Landaffensi excepto peculiariter petierunt à sede Apostolicâ veniam prioris gravissimae culpae See before §. 47. confirmationem in suo cujusque Episcopatu Lastly in the same Statute it is concluded That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops and Ordinaries should be in the same State for process of Suits punishments of Errors and execution of Censures of the Church with knowledge of Causes belonging to the same and as large in these Points as the said Jurisdiction was in the Twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth § 51 After these Statutes see to the same purpose the Synod held presently after the Coronation of Queen Mary Aâ—d the Church Doctrine under King Edward condemned before the introduction of any new Bishops save only some of those that were ejected in King Edward's Reign In which Synod the Bishop of London presided the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury having been about a Month before by the Council committed to the Tower for Treason for which he was some Two Months after condemned but afterward pardoned by the Queen In this Synod Fox saith p. 1282. that the whole House of Convocation Fox p. 1698. except Six persons did immediately assent and subscribe to the natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar and Transubstantiation and to the renouncing of the Catechisme put forth in the latter time of King Edward in the name of the Clergy and of the new Book of Common-Prayer these things being proposed to them by the Prolocutor At which time saith he Mr. Philpot Arch-Deacon of Winchester was as it were astonied at the multitude of so many Learned Men as there were on purpose gathered together to maintain old Traditions rather than the Truth of Gods Holy Word After this Synod see in Fox p. 1294. §. 52. n 1. the Eighteen Articles sent by the Queen to the Bishops but these Articles such as only enjoyned them the observance of former Church Constitutions from which the late Innovations had disobediently deviated commanding them to see to the Observance in their Diocesses of the Church Canons used in the time of Henry the Eighth securing them herein from the incurring any danger from the Laws of the Realm see the 1. Act. The Second of which Articles requires them to omit in their Writs Regiâ authoritate fulcitus The Third not to require the Oath of the Queens Supremacy in their admission of any into Church Preferments The Fourth excludes Sacramentaries from all Ecclesiastical Functions the Synod held in October before having declared against them The Seventh excludes according to the former Church Canons all married Persons from Ecclesiastical Promotions The Ninth appointeth the Divorce of married Monks and other Religious Persons who had formerly taken the perpetual Vow of Continency and the rest are to renew some or other former order of the Church Lastly see the Retractation made by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days confessed by Mason de Minist §. 52. n. 2. 3. l. 4. c. Regnante Mariâ alia Episcopis mens alius animus fuit i e. concerning Supremacy To which all that he answers is this Eorum subsecuta inconstantia confessionis prioris soliditatem abolere non potuit Quamvis sententias revocarunt suis tamen ipsorum argumentis non satisfecerunt But however that he will not grant the Kings Supremacy I mean in such a sense as it was then maintained to have been confuted by the Bishops reasoning yet he grants it to have been revoked so much as in them lay by their Authority § 53 The only thing which can here be questioned is whether this Clergy in Queen Mary's days That Queen Mary's Clergy was a lawful Clergy who in their following Synods abrogated the Acts and Concessions of the Clergy's former Synods in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's days were a lawful Clergy Which if they be now note that they will also be so in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days when also they opposed her Reformation Now it is questioned whether they were a lawful Clergy α α because many of King Edward's Bishops were in the beginning of this Queenâ—s Reign ejected β β and some also burnt for Hereticks and others put into their places γ γ whilst some of them were living and so those Sees not vacant δ and δ that without the consent of the Metropolitan who for the three first Years of Queen Mary was Cranmer without which Metropolitan's consent the Ordination of any Bishop in his Province was unlawful See Can. Nicen. 4. Can. Apostol 35. Now these Bishops are numbred by Fox to have been then ejected Pag. 1289. Cranmer from Canterbury Holgate from York Ridley from London Poynet from Winchester Hooper from Worcester he might have said from Glocester too for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the Sixth's time held both these Sees together in Commendam and for Worcester See Godw. Annal. An. Dom. 1555. Latimer then living had been Bishop thereof in King Henry 's days out of which for Non-conformity to the Six Articles he was ejected or for fear resigned it and was imprisoned in the Tower till King Edward 's time yet for what reason I know not could never then be restored to his Bishoprick Barlow from Bathe Harley from Hereford Taylor from Lincoln but this was by death not by the Queen as appears in Fox p. 1282. Ferrars from St. Davids Coverdale from Excester Scory from Chichester Besides these I find two more mentioned by Mason de Minist p. 248. Bush from Bristol and Bird from Chester Of which Bishops Mr. Fox saith p. 1280 Five were put out that the former Possessors of those Bishopricks might be restored Bonner to London Gardiner to Winchester Day to Chichester Heath to Worcester but Heath was afterward translated to York in Holgates room and Pate to Worcester in Hoopers room Vesy to Excester Besides which Tonstal was restored to Durham a Bishoprick which after Tonstal's Imprisonment was first kept void in King Edward's days and at last by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue § 54 Now in Vindication of the
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
Thomas Dobb a Master of Art upon the same Account who also dyed in Prison Fox p. 1180. In Queen Elizabeth's days one Jo. Lewes and Matthew Hammond were burnt for Hereticks after they were first condemned by the Bishop and so delivered over to the Secular Power as those were in Queen Mary's Reign So also was Hacket executed then partly for Heresy and Blasphemy See Hollin Qu. Eliz. A. Reg. 21. 25. and Two Brownists Coppin and Thocker hanged at St. Edmunds-bury An. Dom. 1583 for Publishing Brown's Book written against the Common-Prayer-Book Likewise several others in her time condemned and recanting bare their Faggots See Stow p. 679 680. Stow p. 1174 Cambden 's Hist Eliz. p. 257. In King James's time Bartholomew Legat was burnt for an Heretick And in his time An. 3. Jac. 4. c. a Law was Enacted concerning Hanging Drawing and Quartering any who should turn Papist and be reconciled to the Pope and See of Rome tho a meer Laick tho one taking the Oath of Allegiance as several reconciled do The Words are If any shall be willingly reconciled to the Pope or See of Rome or shall promise Obedience to any such pretended Authority that every such Person or Persons shall be to all intents adjudged Traytors Is not this putting to death for pretended Heresy And to a Death worse than Burning So in Protestant States abroad Servetus by that of Geneva Valentinus Gentilis by that of Berne were burnt for Hereticks Calvin approving § 66 This to shew the Protestant's judgment concerning the justness and equity of the Law of burning Hereticks But whether this Law in it self be just and again if just whether it may justly be extended to all those simple People put to death in Queen Mary's days such as St. Austine calls Haereticis credentes because they had so much Obstinacy as not to recant those Errors for which they saw their former Teachers Sacrifice their Life especially when they were prejudiced by the most common contrary Doctrine and Practice in the precedent times of Edward the Sixth and had lived in such a condition of life as neither had means nor leisure nor capacity to examine the Church's Authority Councils or Fathers ordinarily such persons being only to be reduced as they were perverted by the contrary fashion and course of the times and by Example not by Argument either from reason or from authority and the same as I say of these Laity may perhaps also be said of some illiterate Clergy whether I say this Law may justly be extended to such and the highest suffering death be inflicted especially where the Delinquents so numerous rather than some lower Censures of Pecuniary Mulcts or Imprisonment these things I meddle not with nor would be thought at all in this place to justify Tho some amongst those unlearned Lay-people I confess to have been extreamly Arrogant and obstinate and zealous beyond knowledge and tho they had suffered for a good Cause yet suffering for it on no good or reasonable ground as neither themselves being any way Learned nor pretending the Authority of any Church nor relying on any present Teachers but on the certainty of their own private judgment interpreting Scripture as you may see if you have a mind in the Disputations of Anne Askew Fox p. 1125. Woodman the Iron-maker Fox p. 1800. Fortune the Smith Fox p. 1741. Allen the Miller Fox p. 1796. and other Mechanicks with Bishops and other Learned Men concerning the lawfulness of the Mass the Authority of the Church the Number of the Sacraments the manner or possibility of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist c themselves afterward penning or causing to be penned you may judge with what Integrity the Relations which we have of the said Disputations See more concerning the erroneous zeal of such like Persons in Fox Monuments later Edition Vol. 3. Fol. 242. 286. 396. 886. § 67 This concerning the lawful Ejection of those Protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places To. γ. 1. which if lawful so also will be the introduction of those who were chosen in their rooms tho this Introduction was * 1. whilst they Living or * 2. without their or the Metropolitan's Consent 1. Tho whilst they Living if such Election of them be after that the other are justly ejected Of this none can doubt Now most of the Protestant Bishops were ejected at the very beginning of Queen Mary's days for being married tho some of them not so speedily sentenced for Heresy But suppose the Introduction of the other was whilst they living and before their lawful Ejection yet these Bishops that are so unjustly I grant introduced if after that the others are ejected then their Superiors having the power to elect into such place do acknowledge and approve them from thence forward begin to be legitimate and enjoy a good Title § 68 2. To δ. 2. Tho without their or the Metropolitan's Consent For if the Arch-Bishop without whose consent the Canon permitteth not any Bishop to be consecrated in his Province be upon just cause and especially upon suspicion of Heresy in any restraint so as he cannot safely be suffered either in respect of the Church or State any longer to execute his office till cleared of such guilt here his Office is rightly administred as in Sede vacante by some other whether it be by some Bishop of the Province his Ordinary Vice-gerent or Substitute in such Cases or by the Delegates of that Authority which in the Church is Superior to the Arch-Bishops or by the consent of the major part of the Bishops of such Province And so Arch-Bishop Cranmer being at Queen Mary's first Entrance accused 1. of being Married an Irregularity incurring Deposition and also confessed and 2. of Treason and 3. of Heresy and for the Second of these being by the Queen's Council immediately imprisoned and shortly after condemned to dye before the Consecration of any new Bishop his Office was now lawfully supplyed by another either by Cardinal Pool the Popes Legat or by the Bishop the next dignified Person after the Arch-Bishop in the Province or by whomsoever the Queen should depute as for any exceptions that the Arch-Bishop could make against it since he acknowledged her for the Supreme Head of the English Church Or if notwithstanding such his restraint or condemnation according to the Canon no new Bishop could be made without the Arch-Bishop's consent yet could Arch-Bishop Cranmer justly claim no such Authority from the Canon as indeed he never did 1. Because he held the abrogation of such Canons to be in the Power of the Prince as the Supreme Head of this Church at least when assisted with the Parliament and major part of the Clergy And so then was this arguing ad homines abrogated by Queen Mary appointing allowing these new Elections 2. Because he had consented to the Statutes made formerly 25. Hen. 8.20 c. and 1
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
the wiser sort resolved that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome lest they being Subjects should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince and take up the banner of Rebellion Thus Cambden Now the contention about the manner of disputing which Cambden omits was what side should speak last which the Bishops because of their dignity desired to do after having observed Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked But this the Queens Council would not yield to them the first agreement being pretended contrary and so that conference ceased After this Disputation followed the suppressing sect 179. n. 1. The Regâ—l Suâ—remancy and all that K. Edw. hâ—d done in the Refâ—rmâ—tioâ— now re-established by the Queen and Paâ—liament of the Mass of the Popes Supremacy of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigor by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy in all those spiritual Jurisdictions which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary and upon pretence that the Crown could not be supported with such honor as it ought to be if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembred from it all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary Besides which because there were many Impropriations and Tithes by dissolution of Religious Houses invested in the Crown the Queen kept several Bishopricks void till she had taken into her hands what Castles Mannors and Tenements she thought good returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes but this an extended instead of the other old rent Bishopricks being thus kept void also in following times one after another upon several occasions saith Dr. Heylin till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it See his History of Queen Elizabeth p. 120 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. c. sect 179. n. 2. Again Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer but altered first in some things by eight Learned men all of the reformed party and non-Bishops to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen In which review saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Elizabeth p. 111. there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. see before § 160. The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it The Body of our Lord c. Take and eat lest saith that Author under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers Likewise the Rubrick about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground And to come up closer saith he to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood as also the Altar in the Queens own Chappel was furnished with rich Plate two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124. that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus Musick retained in the Church Festivals observed c. Thus Dr. Heylin And some such thing likewise was observed if you will give me leave to digress a little by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion both concerning Real Presence For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words Since as the Holy Scriptures testify Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the world It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out and concerning Church Authority and Church Ceremonies For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days being taken with the Geneva-way were when they returned great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Eâ—â—land and of Church-authority in general therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ' The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence Insomuch as when one of her Divines see Heylin's Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 124. had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complyed so far as to resort to the Mass see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist in answer to a Priest desiring her judgment therein are well known 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies and great Opposer of the Puritans see before § 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist p. 144. c. several of whom tho in such a scarcity of Divines she preferred in the beginning of her Reign as Sampson to be Dean of Christ Church Whittington to be Dean of Durham Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge c Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her And when Alexander Nowel Dean of Pauls had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression and to return unto his Text. Heyl. Hist. p. 124. But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queens days in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad and by Peter Martyr and others here at home and that tho some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived
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-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
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
of Catholic Unity but instead of these we are told of a Western Patriarch one who pleads the Prescription of some Years for his Autority and thinks himself hardly dealt with pag. 214. that because He claims more then his due that which is his due should be denyed him Hence it seems to be that He is so wary in giving us his own Opinions that He disputes so much and affirms so little that he bounds all his Positions with so many limitations that they seem contriv'd on purpose for subterfuges and that He very cautiously ventures not any farther then He thinks tho' falsly the Autority of our Writers will bear him out Hence those Concessions which will perhaps by that Party be judg'd over-liberall § 117 That Images and so the veneration or worship of them were very seldom if at all us'd in the Primitive Church That the publick Communion was then most commonly if not allways administred in both kinds unto the People That the Divine Service which then as now was celebrated usually in the Latin or Greek Tongue was much better in those days then now understood of the Common people That the having the Liturgy or Divine Service or the Holy Scriptures in a known tongue is not prohibited nor the using of Images enjoyn'd nor the Priest's administring and the people's receiving the Communion in both kinds if the Supreme Church-Governours so think fit and we say they ill discharge the Office of Church-Governours who do not think fit our Saviours Institution should be observ'd declar'd unlawful by any Canon of any Council Ancient Council he means for latter Councils have declar'd these unlawful These are large grants from a Romanist and which give a great shock to their so much magnified pretence of Universal Tradition Had this Author liv'd in those Ages when the Secular Prince countenanc'd the beginnings of Reformation He would have scarce lost any thing for his too rigorous adhaesion to the C. of Rome For he thinks it probable that had the Reformation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known tongue § 118 administred Communion in both kinds thought fit not to use Images changed something of practise only without any decession from the Churches Doctrines the Church-Governours would have been facile to license these Where by the way it seems something unintelligible how they should change practice without decession from Doctrines if Doctrines enjoyn'd such Practices pag. 2. §. 2. and if according to him Errours in practice allways presuppose some Errour in matter of Faith But at least we may expect He would have outwardly complied since he notes That some outward compliance at the first pag. 140. §. 123. of those Bishops who made an open Opposition afterward might be upon a fair Pretence because the first Acts of the Reformation might not be so insupportable as the latter Where it is worth our Observing that the very first Act which gave life to the Reformation was shaking off all manner of Obedience to the See of Rome then which I believe his Holiness contrary to this Author's Sentiments thinks no Act more unsupportable These things consider'd We could not have had a more easie Adversary then this Gentleman and the Church has less reason to fear his open Opposition then had he still continued in her bosom For it seems not to be his Province to publish what is Material against us but to publish Much. But God be thanked our Religion is not establish'd upon so weak a basis as to be overthrown by a few Theses unprov'd and falsly applied Nor is it any wonder if that arguer doth not convince who uses for Principles Conclusions drawn from Praemisses which the world never saw and then assumes such things as every one acquainted with History is able to contradict Certainly his University-Readers will not be very fond of the Conclusion of that Syllogism whose Major is a petitio principii Minor a down-right fals-hood in matter of fact They no doubt are surpriz'd to find Consequents come before their Antecedents and Church-Government part the 5th to have stept into the World somewhat immaturely methinks before the other four But the Lawfulness of the English Reformation was to be examin'd and it would have took up too much time to shew why he impos'd upon us such a Test It might therefore be thought seasonable enough to examin the Truth of his Theses when he shall be pleas'd to communicate to us whence they are inferr'd In the meanwhile it may not be unuseful to consider what disservice he had done to our Cause had his success aequal'd the boldness of his attempt After all his Theses and their Applications his Correspondent Alpha's and Beta's his perplex'd Paragraphs his intricate Paratheses and his taedious Citations what Doctrine of the Church of Rome has he establish'd or what principle of Ours has he disprov'd Should we grant that the Clergy only have power in Controversies of Religion that the Secular Prince has no Autority to reform Errours in the Church that our Princes did wrongfully usurp such an Autority and that our Reformation was not the act of the Clergy will it hence follow which yet is to be prov'd by this Author e're he can perswade us to entertain any favourable Opinion of Popery That the second Commandment ought to be expung'd out of the Decalogue that Idolatry is no Sin or worshipping of Images no Idolatry that Transubstantiation is to be believ'd in despight of Sense Reason Scripture and Antiquity the Service of God to be administred in an unknown tongue as it were in mere contradiction to Saint Paul and the Communion to be celebrated in one kind notwithstanding our Saviours Drink ye all of this It is indeed our happiness that the Reformation was carried on by the joynt concurrence of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power that We are united together by common Rules for Government and Worship agree'd on by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation and made Laws to us by the Autority of the Sovereign We are allways ready to prove that the Church of England being a National Church and not Subject to any forreign Jurisdiction ow'd no Obedience to the Bishop or Church of Rome therefore might without their leave reform her self and that accordingly our Religion is establish'd by such Laws as want no autority either Civil or Ecclesiastical which they ought to have This is a Plea which we shall be allways prepar'd to justifie and a Blessing for which we thank God and for the continuance of which we shall never cease to pray But now had those which we esteem corruptions of the Roman Church never been cast out or were they reestablish'd which God in his mercy forbid by as good autority as that by which they are now abolish'd Yet even then we could not submit to such Determinations and being concluded by an antecedent Obligation to God durst not obey even lawful autority commanding unlawful things He
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
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
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
London b Lord Herbert p. 402. Being afterwards made Bishop of Duresme he was sent with others to perswade Katherine to acquiesce in the Divorce he us'd several Arguments to convince her of the justice of it She urging his former Opinion in favour of her cause he replyed that he had only pleaded for the amplitude and fulness of the Bull but that the Consummation of the former Marriage had now been judicially prov'd the second Marriage declar'd by the Sentences of the Universities incestuous and contrary to the Law of God and therefore by the Pope's Bull however ample indispensable Which is a Demonstration against what this Author asserts that Tonstal was one who justified the second Marriage tho' the former had been Consummate Sanders his diligence in reckoning up those who wrote for the Queen's cause we do not question but we much doubt his Veracity It requir'd an extraordinary diligence to find a book written by a c Sand. p. 53. Bishop of Bristol 13 Years before ever there was such a Bishop-rick But should we grant Sanders's full tale of almost twenty these are neither to be compar'd in Number nor Autority with those who wrote against it An d Burn. Hist V. 1. p. 106. hundred books were shewn in Parliament written for the Divorce by Divines and Lawyers beyond Sea besides the Determinations of twelve the most celebrated Universities of Europe To which might have been added the e See the Abstract of what was written for the Divorce Burn. V. 1. p. 97. Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers the Opinions of the Scool-men the Autority of the Infallible Pope who in our Author's Introduction granted a Bull of Divorce and the Sentence of one more Infallible then He the a Lev. 18.16 and c. 20.21 Author of the Pentateuch This was agreed on all sides that Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impedimentis jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt This was not so Universally agreed as our Author would perswade us for those b Burn. Hist Vol. 1. p. 103. who wrote for the Queen's Cause pleaded that the Pope's power of dispencing did reach farther then to the Laws of the Church even to the Laws of God for he dayly dispenced with the breaking of Oaths and Vows tho' that was expresly contrary to the c With us the third second Commandment And when the Question was debated in the Convocation One d Id. ibid. p. 129. voted the Prohibition to be Moral but yet Dispensable Others gather'd the Law in Levit. 18.16 dispensable in some cases from the express Dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5 But on the other side it was then answer'd e Ibid. p. 105. that the Provision about marrying the Brother's Wife only proves the ground of the Law is not in it's own Nature immutable but may be dispensed with by God in some cases but because Moses did it by divine Revelation it does not follow that the Pope can do it by his Ordinary Autority For the general Judgment of the Learned and particularly for the Vniversities after you have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert See what the Act of Parliament 1º Mariae saith of them What the general judgment of the Learned was has been intimated already What were the Sentiments of the Vniversities will best be learnt from their solemn Determinations After I have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford I am very well satisfied that I have been abus'd and that the rather when I see what is said by Lord Herbert a Lord Herbert p. 352. who on purpose publishes an Original Instrument to confute the lie of Sanders who had call'd the Resolution of our Universities in a sort surreptitious As for the Act of Queen Mary it was the Act of a Queen in her own cause and the 25 Hen. 8.22 c. is as great a proof of the Lawfulness of the Divorce as this is of the Unlawfulness of it What censures were past upon this Act when made may be seen in b Burn. Hist V. 2. p. 254. Dr. Burnet The Act mentioning certain bare and untrue conjectures upon which Archbishop Cranmer founded his sentence of Divorce This Author will have these relate to the consummation of the Marriage of Katherine with Arthur But this is but a bare conjecture of his and very probably untrue For Cranmer c See the Abstract of the grounds of the Divorce Burn. V. 1. Coll. p. 95. thinking the Marriage of a Brother's Wife unlawful and the Essence of all Marriage to consist not in the carnalis copula but in the conjugal pact might upon these Principles conclude the Marriage with Henry unlawful tho' that with Arthur had been prov'd not consummate and therefore need not build on any conjectures concerning the Consummation Tho' had he founded his judgment upon that supposition It if I may so speak with due reverence to an Act of Parliament was neither a bare conjecture nor untrue As for the Hesitancy of the German-Protestant Divines to declare the Divorce lawful I cannot conceive why it is urg'd by this Author who certainly doth not prefer the Judgment of these Protestant-Doctors to the contrary Determination of the Roman-Catholic Universities It has been observ'd upon this Author's writings that he is no great Friend of either Communion of which We have here a very good Confirmation when to prove the illegality of K. Henry's Divorce he declines the Autority of the Roman-Catholic Universities as Mercenary and appeals to the German Divines whom he will have to be of his Opinion Now what can be a greater blemish to the Roman Communion then that those great Bodies which may justly be suppos'd it's greatest Strength should so cheaply barter away their Consciences Or what more Honourable testimony given to the Leaders of the Reformation then that their judgment should be appeal'd to in an instance which makes it appear that their Integrity could not be so far sway'd by the prospect of a common reform'd Interest as their Adversaries are said to have been by the scandalous temptations of a Bribe But this is not a single instance how much more he regards his Hypothesis then the honour of his Communion Thus below § 122 to prove that King Edward's Reformation was not Universal he accuses those Clergy that did comply of Hypocrisy and to shew there were some non-complyers he instances in the frequent Rebellions of the Romanists which he saith would not have been had they not been justified to them by the Clergy The most bitter Adversary to the Church of Rome would wish her such Advocates I have made this Digression to shew you the diversity of Opinions which was in this difficult Matter that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgment and how the several Interests
of several times justified and condemn'd the same thing I am very well convinc'd tho' not from our Author's proof that the Pope stood not alone in his judgment For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion The Pope judg'd for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph when the Dispensation was procur'd from him but here in the 19th he judges against it But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles then his Passions or Interest And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when telling us in the same Page that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinc'd of the Unlawfulness of it but because at the same time he stood much in aw of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine He needed not therefore to have instanc'd in the different Opinions of diverse Men since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinc'd us that the several Interests of several times justifi'd and condemn'd the same thing Now to return to our Matter in hand So that it seems he has digress'd for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to shew that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses The aforesaid Summ of 100000 l spent upon the Vniversities abroad c. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie and I need say no worse of it § 20 The King he saith excepted at the Limitation of Quantum per legem Christi licet in the Title given him by the Clergy and so at last upon renew'd threats this Clause also was procur'd to be omitted See Antiquit. Britannic The Author knew or might have known that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken For Dr. Burnet a Hist V. 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observ'd that King Henry when the Province of York demurr'd upon granting the King the Title of Head as improper in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ Accordingly it is represented as pass'd with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif § 2. Historians He refers us again to Dr. Bailie But the Reader I presume has had enough of him already The excluding the Patriarch is he saith contrary to his 4th Thesis It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope They could find no grounds for the Papal Autority from Scripture Antiquity or Reason but they might perhaps have been convinc'd from our Author's Theses which are an Autority distinct to all those This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon it is because I would not gall him too much Cranmer is said to have divorc'd the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Autority out of his Dominions § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compar'd with p. 144. was pronounc'd in May 1533 and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following Cranmer in the Sentence is call'd Legate of the Apostolic See By this Instance it is plain how implicitely our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology as well as History Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat saith Sanders This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first propos'd c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declar'd it was contrary to the Law of God He induc'd d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it f Ibid. p. 38. He subscrib'd and perswaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it He earnestly prest Fisher to concurr and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops These are some of the favours which Warham shew'd to the Queen's Cause § 23 The Clergy having declar'd the King Supreme Head of the Church it seem'd reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head This is a wild and senseless Calumny the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Autority her Charter she derives immediately from Christ The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave but the execution of which they abridg themselves is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject and therefore necessarily requir'd the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power He cites from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner and allow'd by the Convocation to a Parliamentary Remonstrance But either my a Reform Just in the Historical Tracts Edit Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin or which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations this Author deceives me The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be review'd by 32 Commissioners § 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weigh'd by Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation and it is one of our Author 's pertinent remarks that they did not meddle with what was not reform'd The Reformation of the Canons was a design of which Nothing worse can be said than that it did not take effect If it trouble him that Canons contrary to the King's Prerogative Laws of the Land good of the Subject and Laws of God should be reform'd no Honest man can pity him If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers that has been spoke to by the b Animadv p. 36. Animadverter If by Canons Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation it is out of his wonted pride to outface the Statutes For the c Forasmuch as such Canons Constitutions and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm cannot now be view'd examin'd and determin'd by the King 's Highness and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 c. Act expresly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods and had no
's of England were always Supreme Nor is this Nomination at all injurious to the Divine Right of Bishops which is not deriv'd from the Persons Electing or Nominating but the Pastors Consecrating But we have him again crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He finds the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. By Virtue of their Acts to take Informations concerning the not using of the Common-Prayer c. Therein prescrib'd and to punish the same by Excommunication c. The first and last of these cs are very artificially placed for corrupting the Text. After Bishops should have follow'd Chancellors and Commissaries after Excommunication Sequestration and other Censures and Processes So that the Autority given by this Act doth not necessarily respect the Bishops and that Power of Excommunicating which they have jure divino but may relate to the power given to Chancellors and Commissaries and other Officers who plead no such divine right to their respective Functions or if the Bishops are included yet not so as that they derive the power of Excommunicating from this Act but of inflicting the other punish-ments which by this Act may be inflicted Or let us suppose the Bishops authoriz'd by this Act to Excommunicate and Excommunication taken in the strictest sense for internal Censures yet this will be no injury to their Jus divinum untill it be prov'd that because God has gave the Bishops a power to Excommunicate therefore the King may not command them to put it in Execution where there is a just Cause § 41 He finds 32 Persons commission'd to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical But this he found before in King Henry's Reign where it has already been consider'd and whither I refer the Reader as often as this Author shall be pleas'd to remind us of this Discovery § 42 He finds Six Prelates and Six others commissioned to make a new form of Consecration of Bishop's and Priests He might have found that this Act as well as the former was made at the a See the Petitions of the Clergy Burn. Vol. 2. p. 47. request of the Convocation Nothing is by him excepted against the Form it self and for the Autority the Synod petition'd such a Commission might be granted the b Six Prelates and six Divines Bur. V. 2. p. 141. Persons commission'd were all Clergy Men and c King Edwards Articles Art 35. Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 218. the Synod confirm'd it when done As for the Oath against the Pope inserted in the new Ordinal it was by birth a Roman-Catholic d Fox p. 1092. King Henry's Bishops took it without scruple That e Compare the Oath in Fox with the Oath of Supremacy as it now stands part of it which this Author thinks most offensive is since put out and he may be as severe as he pleaseth upon a Non-entity The Heretical Catechism in the 43d Paragraph shall be spoken to when it meets us agen in the 166th § 43 The 44th would justifie a Protestation of Bishop Bonner's which that Bishop himself a Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 112. recanted He is angry at Fox for calling that Protestation Popish But the Prelate himself in his recantation of it calls it unadvised of ill ex-example unreasonable and undutifull If Fox abuses the Bishop it is because Popish signifies something worse then all these § 45 We are next entertain'd with a confus'd Catalogue of Articles propos'd to Bishop Gardiner's Subscription together with our Author's Notes upon them One of the most pertinent Notes would have been that Bishop b Fox p. 1350. 1357. Gardiner subscrib'd most of these Articles but this was not for his Interest to observe His remark is that tho' in some of these Articles the Autority of Parliament is mention'd yet in none of these is any thing said of the Consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Parliamentary or Regal injunctions valid That the consent of the Clergy was urg'd to this Bishop I hope he does not deny I am sure c §. 110. it is urg'd by r. that in the charge given in against Gardiner it is said that the Injunctions were of all men for all sorts obediently receiv'd And that this charge was given in is not denied in the Reply to r. §. 119. elsewhere He confesses it The meaning must be that this consent was not urg'd under the modality of making the Regal Injunctions valid Nor do I see any Necessity it should for Gardiner had not yet so far refin'd his gross sense of the Supremacy but that he still own'd his Obligation to obey His Majestie 's Godly Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion Neither could the Imposers of these Injunctions according to their Principles lay so great a stress on the consent of the Clergy for if the matter of the Injunctions was unlawful no Church-Autority could make them lawful but if it was agreeable to the Law of God then the Civil Autority without the Synodal if that had been wanting was sufficient From this idle remark the Author has rais'd as idle a Consequence From this non-mentioning the consent of the Clergy he collects that when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mention'd as sometimes it is it is not to add any Autority to these Injunctions thereby Now to me it seemes a wild Inference that because the Synodal consent was once not urg'd as necessary therefore when-ever it was urg'd it was thought to add no Autority I may certainly obey my Prince in a thing lawful tho' my Pastor doth not at the same time exact this Obedience from me But when they both require the same Duty there ariseth a new tie of Obedience and I am now under a double Obligation But least we should wonder why the King and Parliament never pleaded any Necessity of the Synodal consent the Author conjectures the reasons to be 1st Because some of the Voters were displac'd and so their suffrage less Authentical But these places were supplied and then I would know why those who succeeded into their Pastoral charge did not also succeed into their Synodal Autority and if so why the Reformers should think the Act of a Synod less Authentical when Ridley sat there than when Bonner did His second reason is Because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force but so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were superior to the English Clergy And if the King urg'd his and his Subject's freedom from the Laws of the Church Vniversal so must He also from the Laws of his own Church National Church Superior Synods and the Church-Vniversal are words which sound big but when they come to be construed the Laws of the Church signifie Papal Decrees Superior Synods are put for any Council that is forreign and the Church-Vniversal dwindles into Roman-Catholic In this case I hope we may obey our Lawful Pastors tho' we reject an Usurper
Nor are we quitted from our Obligation to the just Autority of our own Bishops because we do not submit to the Invasions of Forreigner But if by Church-Vniversal and Superior Synods is meant what other People understand by those words it rests to be prov'd that the Reformed plead an Exemption from their Autority § 46 The 46th Paragraph tells us of God's just judgment on Bishop Gardiner for having so zealously abetted the King's Supremacy But the divine Judgments are differently interpreted according to the different Sentiments of the Interpreters Other Writers tell us of severer Judgments inflicted on this Prelate than Deprivation and that for more flagrant crimes then asserting the Regal Supremacy He concludes this Chapter with the resentment of the Clergy for their lost Synodal Autority It is confest that the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical power too high in the times of Popery had now produc'd another of depressing it too much But this was the Infelicity of the Clergy not their Crime The same Autority which tells us the Clergy complain'd of this tells us also that those complainers were the Reformers But this is a truth which is industriously conceal'd and the Citation mangled lest it should confess too much Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est saith he from the Antiquitates Britannicae Clericis multo jam acrius atque vigilantius in divina Veritate quam unquam antea laborantibus say the Antiquities This Omission I believe was not for brevity sake for he doth not use to be so frugal in his Citations But the Reader was to understand by Clerici the Popish Clergy exclusively to all others and the decay of Synodal Autority was to be represented not as the grievance but the fault of the Reformers For this reason it is that we find this Author indecently insulting oven that pious Martyr Bishop Hooper All which I shall observe of it is this that what is here said of this Bishop's Appeal from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil power is applicable to St. Paul's a Acts 25.11 Appeal to Caesar The cause then was Ecclesiastical for They b Acts 25.19 had certain questions against him of their own Superstition And the Bishop might have us'd St. Pauls Plea c Acts 24.14 That after the way which they call'd Heresie so worship'd he the God of his Fathers believeing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets This Chapter more nearly concerning the Reformation it may not be amiss to give a brief Summary of what is perform'd in it It is said that all the Supremacy was confirm'd to Edward the 6th which was conceded to Henry the 8th But no reason is given why it should have been diminish'd that some Statutes against Heretics were repeal'd but this repeal not shewn to be without good reason or good Autority that all Jurisdiction Spiritual is said to be deriv'd from the Prince but this Expression taken in a due Sense may be justifyed and if it could not the Act being void we are under no Obligation to defend it that the Bishops are authoriz'd by Virtue of an Act of Parliament to excommunicate but this Interpretation is forc'd upon the Statute and the words taken even in this Sence will not bear the Stress which is laid upon them that 32 Commissioners were appointed to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical and 6 Prelates with 6 others to reform the Ordinal but nothing said to shew that these did not want a Reformation or that the Persons commission'd were not qualified for such a trust and these two urg'd as the mere effects of Parliamentary Supremacy which were the Synodical request of the Clergy that an Oath of Supremacy was impos'd on Persons entring into Holy Orders but this Oath invented by Papists and in that part which gives Offence since alter'd that an Hypothetical Submission of Bonner was not accepted but this such a Submission as that Bishop recanted That the consent of the Clergy was once not urg'd as necessary to make the Regal Injunctions valid But no reason assign'd why it should have been That the Clergy complain'd of their lost Synodal Autority But these the Reformers who yet are accus'd of being no Friends to it That Bishop Hooper appeal'd to the Civil power But so also did St. Paul The title of this Chapter least the Contents may have made the Reader forget it was The Supremacy claim'd by King Edward the 6th A Reply to Chapter the 5th WE are come now to Q. Mary's Reign the fatal Revolutions of which We would willingly forget did not the unseasonable importunity of these Men refresh our memories Our Author had acted the part of a skilful Painter had he cast a veil over this piece of his History for the Calamities of this Reign tend little to the Honour of that Religion and are never properly insisted on but by those who write Invectives against Popery But those Reflections which create horror in other men's breasts seem to have a different Effect on this Writer for in his entrance upon this Reign it is easie to discover such a new Warmth and Vigor in his Expressions as betray him to be in a more then ordinary rapture All that had been done in the two former Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy were now by an equal Autority of Prince Clergy and State revers'd repeal'd ejected His Discourse here has put on a new air and like the Orator in his triumphs over exil'd Cataline he prosecutes declining Heresie with an abiit excessit evasit But here to moderate his Acclamations let me tell him that this Prince who thus reverses repeals and ejects was the same a Burn. V. 2. p 237. that gave the Suffolk men full assurance that she would never make any Innovations or changes in Religion The same that made an open Declaration in Council b Bur. V. 2. p. 245. that though her own Conscience was staid in matters of Religion yet she was resolv'd not to compel or restrain others So that this after repealing reflects severely on those Guides who had the Government of her Conscience and those Principles by which She acted Lay-Supremacy was indeed at last ejected by her but not till the other parts of the Reformation were reverst by it's Influence If sending out Injunctions in matters Ecclesiastical using the Title of Head of the Church convoking Synods ejecting Bishops by Commission prohibiting some Preachers licensing others inhibiting the Pope's Legate to come into the Kingdom if these I say are admitted to be signs of a Lay-Supremacy it must be confest that Q. Mary was such a Supreme It is not therefore Regal Supremacy as such but as countenancing the Reformation which these men condemn Those Powers which in the former Chapter were Invasions of the Church's right do in this easily escape our Author's Censure We are told now of the power of the Prince when Protestantism is to be defac'd who in the establishment
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
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That