Privileges to or act by Jurisdiction upon another where there was no Common Government acknowledg'd no Legal Commerce or Subordination nothing but profess'd and notorius Hostility betwixt them And this whatever our modern Latitudinarians may fancy the Catholick Church has always taken to be the Case of opposite Communions And the generality of the Bishops being then involved in the Arian Schism though in the Heresy they were no otherwise involved than as the Schism did by Interpretation make them liable to the charge of the Heresy with which they Communicated there was no solemn reconciliation of them who were by their Office the Persons to whom reconciliation ought Ordinarily to have been made It was hard to expect it when the Bishops who had escaped the Contagion were so very small a number in comparison of those who were involved in it Yet these Practices must have occasioned many real Nullities if GOD had not been thought obliged in Equity to supply such defects where no injury followed to any Person living And the Catholick Church when she condemned the Luciferians for their Schism on account of these Austerities and charged the Guilt of the separation made on this account on them who made it plainly supposed that this was not a Cause sufficient to justify a Separation and therefore that such Nullities in rigour not in equity did not in the least affect the next Generation when there was no better Title which might in justice oblige GOD to ratify is for the good of Government and to oblige the whole Society to do justice under pain if they neglected it of not having their Acts of Spiritual Authority ratifyed by him without whose Ratification they must be unavaylable 'T is true there might be some reason for ratifying such Nullities when the Subjects by joyning with the better Title might secure their Interest in the Peculiar People But should GOD do it when there is no other Body in which the Subjects may secure themselves it must only make the Subjects desperate It would tempt them to believe that GOD intended there should no more be a peculiar People But how can that be reconciled with the new Covenant's being an Everlasting Covenant with its Gifts being without Repentance with Gods promise never to withdraw his mercies nor to suffer his Truth to fail notwithstanding whatsoever Provocations his chosen People might be guilty of How much less can he do it for such faileurs as he knows before to be unavoidable by them And for this purpose Dr. Hody ' s Collection is full And it seems indeed the design of the Author of it only to shew that the Church did not unravel Old disputes when the Persons were dead that werâ— concerned in them so as to make Nullities of all that had been done on the faulty side after the injury was ended and when things could not now be remedied This was the case of St. Chrysostom who disswaded his own Friends from such extremities not whilst he was living but after his decease This therefore was the fault of the Joannites that they made Nullities of all that was done by his Successors for so many years after his death contrary to the good Council himself had given them This was the fault of the Arsenians that they also made Nullities of all that was done by the Josephians for so many Years after the death of Arsenius This therefore being the occasion of that Collection will shew us the design of it The Author had no occasion to concern himself in defending the tolerableness of unjust much less of invalid deprivations whilst the Persons were living but only in defending the tolerableness of preceding Nullities after the injured Titles were extinct when they could not be recalled or amended And this will suffice to shew that though there had been invalidities in the Titles of our first Protestant Bishops on account of the better Titles of the Popish Bishops of the same Jurisdictions that cannot hurt the Titles of our Protestant Bishops now since their Succession has so long failed and ours been un-interrupted though both had been as they were not of the same Communion § XXXV BUT withall neither is that so certain as it may seem at the first view that even they who took out the Lay-Commissions did thereby lose their better Title to their Spiritual Authority received by their Ecclesiastical Consecrations So far indeed it might hold as to cut all such Persons off from the confidence of pleading the invalidity of the Lay-Deprivations that even such a Deprivation might be justly valid on their principles who had owned themselves to have no Spiritual Power but what they had received from the Civil Magistrate Indeed that worthy Person who was pleased to conceal himself under the assumed name of Anthony Harmar from the Processes against the Protestant Bishops in Queen Mary's time still preserved in the Register of Canterbury tells us that a Nullity of Title was objected to them by their Deprivers on account of these Lay-Commissions So the words of that Register are ob â—ullitatem Consecrationis ejus defectum tituli sui quem habuit à Rege Edwardo sexto per literas Patentes cum hac clausulâ dum bene se gesserit This form was used on Taylor Bishop of Lincoln Hooper Bishop of Worcester and Glocester Barlow Bishop of Hereford and Farrar Bishop of St Davids The same Patents also had been taken out by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Chester and Bristol as the same Author informs us as it should seem out of the same Registers Probably the rest did so too after the Act in King Edwards time But for those who had received their Orders from their Consecrations in the usual way antecedently to their Patents it is justy questionable whether any Act of theirs could alienate the Power they had received from Christ. Much more it is questionable whether they could do it by an indirect Act and by way only of Interpretation which is the most that can be made of their Patent It is not pretended that they did renounce their Spiritual power received from Christ any otherwise than as their owning another Original of that same Spiritual Power in their Patents may be so Interpreted And that Interpretation is only grounded on the inconsistency of these two Originals which makes it necessary that if one be owned the other must be rejected because they cannot be both possessed at once But this inconsistency is applicable both ways and may as well make their Patents null as inconsistent with their better Spiritual Title as make their Spiritual Title null as inconsistent with their Patents And it is not in their Power whether of the two shall be a Nullity unless GOD intended that the Power should be alienable when it was first given them If it was designed unalienable all their Acts afterwards to alienate it must have been Nullities as being inconsistent with the antecedent Right of GOD
THE DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England Concerning the Independency of the CLERGY ON THE LAY-POWER AS To those Rights of theirs which are purely Spiritual reconciled with our Oath of Supremacy AND THE Lay-Deprivations OF THE Popish-Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation By the Author of The Vindication of the depriv'd Bishops LONDON Printed MDCXCVII THE CONTENTS § I. THE Independancy of Bishops on the State pretended to be contrary to the Oath of Supremacy P. I. § II. And contrary to the Principles on which the Popish Bishops were deprived and our present Succession depends P. III. § III. The Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greatâ— then that of any Modern particular one P. IV. § IV. Even with regard to our particular Church Our behaviour signifies more Love and Concern for her than that of our late Brethren does P. VII § V. We shew our greater Love to our Churcâ— particularly in not yeilding so easily as they do that she should lose her Rights on any Te 〈…〉 P. IX § VI. What we do is perfectly consistent with the Authorized explication of the Supremacy vested in the King P. XI § VII Archbishop Cranmers Opinions in Henry the VIII's and Edward the VI's time perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authority P. XII § VIII Archbishops Cranmers Authority in these matters none at all P. XV. § IX It is not for the Interest of the Church of Reformation that his Authority in these things should be regarded P. XVII § X. His Opiniens in this matter no more agreable to the Sense of our present Adversaries than to 〈◊〉 P. XXI § XI The Supremacy and Title of Head when first assumed by Henry the VIII consistent with our Doctrine P. XXIII § XII When the King gave the encroaching Commission to Cromwell it was not yet agreeable to the true Sense of the 〈◊〉 P. XXV § XIII The Appeal allowed from the Archbishops to the Kings Commissioners in Chancery no Argument of any Spiritual Power derived from the King P. XXVII § XIV The Supremacy explained 26. H. VIII 1. not contrary to our Doctrine in this Cause P. XXVIII § XV. The Supremacy as explained 37. H. VIII 17. full to our Adversaries purpose and the sense of Archbishop Cranmer P. XXX § XVI The same notion of the Spuremacy continued also under King Edward the VI. P. XXXIII § XVII King Henry the VIII's Reign by no means to be allowed for an Age of Precedents P. XXXV § XVIII Queen Elizabeth explained the Supremacy in a sense consistent with our principles P. XXXIX § XIX That Explication discharges us now from any Obligation to believe Archbishop Cranmers Principles P. XLI § XX. What the Queen requires we can Sincerely undertake and in a Sense fully answering the Imposition of the Leg 〈…〉 ors P. XLIII § XXI The Queens Injunction excuses us from Swearing to the Supremacy over Spiritual Persons in Causes purely Spiritual P. XLVI § XXII This Injunction of Queen Elizabeth still in force P. L. § XXIII The Explication in the Injuctions Authorize by our Church in her XXXVII Article P. LI. § XXIV The same Explication of the Injunctions confirmed by Act of Parliament P. LIII § XXV It is rather supppsed than contradicted by the 2 Canon P. LV. § XXVI The Practice of the Supremacy to our times no Argument of the Imposed Sense of the Legislators against us P. LVIII § XXVII The Objection proposed that our present Protestant Succession seems to depend on the validity of the Deprivation of the last Popish Bishops which was no other than Laical P. LX. § XXVIII The Lay-Deprivations of those Popish Bishops who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power does not by any jast consequence effect our present Case P. LXI § XXIX The Popish Bishops were of another Communion and therefore needed no other Deprivation than that of the Lay-Magistrate P. LXIII § XXX This Doctrine agreeable exactly to the Sense and Practice of Antiquity P. LXVI § XXXI If the Popish Bishops had had a better Title yet that could not have illegitimated Successors any longer than their own Lives P. LXVIII § XXXII If the Popish Bishops then had the better Title yet their discontinuance of their Succession has made their Title worse now P. LXXI § XXXIII Present Settlements give Right where no better Rights is injured by them P. LXXII § XXXIV This is proved from the Donatist and Luciferian Disputes P. LXXIV § XXXV They who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power might yet keep their better Title P. LXXX THE DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England Concerning the Iudependecy of the Clergy on the Lay-Power as to those Rights of theirs which are purely Spiritual reconciled with our Oath of Supremacy and the Lay-Deprivaons of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation § I. SINCE the finishing of the former Discourse I have been warned of one Prejudice ogainst the Doctrine delivered in it concerning the Independancy of Church-Power on the State very necessary to be removed in order to the preparing our late Brethren for an impartial consideration of what we have to say in it's defence That is that as our Case of Protestant Bishops set up in opposition to other Protestant Bishops deprived by an incompetent Authority is new so our Principles on which our Plea in reference to the Schism is grounded are also charged with Novelty if not with regard to the Doctrine of the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church yet at least with regard to the Doctrine of our late common Mother the Church of England and with regard to that later Antiquity which is derivod no higher than the beginning of our Reformation from Popery It is therefore pretended that our Doctrine concerning the undeprivableness of the Bishops by the Lay-Power is inconsistent with the Supremacy asserted to our Princes in all Causes as well as over all Persons that it is therefore inconsistent not only with all the Lay Acts by which the Supremacy has been asserted but also with all those Acts of the Church by with she also hath concerned her self in this Dispute with the xxxvii Article and the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth owned by an Act of Parliament in her Reign for an Authentical Interpretation of the Supremacy with the Doctrine of the Homilies and the several Injunctions of the Ecclesiasticks for explaining and recommending the same Doctrine to the Belâ—ef and Consciences of their Auditors particularly with the Second Canon which Excommunicates all those who deny the Supremacy in any of those branches wherein it was allowed either to Jewish or Christian Princes and with all those Legal Oaths for maintaning it which have been taken not only by the generality of the Laity but the Ecclesiasticks also as many of them as have been admitted to any eminent station in the Ecclesiastical Government Not now to descend so low as a particular enumeration of the suffrages of our most celebrated Writers It
is withal pretended that this Power of depriving Bishops has ever since the beginning of the Reformation been allowed in the Secular Magistrate in the Practice of this Supremacy as often as there has been occasion for it The first practice of it was lodg'd by King Henry the VIII in Cromwell a Lay-man Yet his Commission Authorized him to proceed against the highest Ecclesiasticks without exception as far as deprivation And in the same Reign Bishops were required to take out Patents from the King for even the Spirituals of their Office their Power of conferring Orders which virtually included all the Rights conveyable by Orders so conferred the Right of Preaching the Word and of Administring the Sacraments These if they were given by the Lay Power must by necessary consequence be deprivable by it also But they are sensible how little reason there is for making the Reign of that imperious and assuming Prince a Reign of Precedents in arguing that what was actually done then must therefore be presumed to have been well done and therefore fit to be done again If this were allowed they know very well that no Right whatsoever even for securing the Peoples Liberties which they pretend most zeal for who have least for those of the Clergy can be made so sacred as to restrain the Conscience of him who has by any means got the possession of an over-ruling force For he who made no Conscience of invading the Rights of those very Persons by whose intervention all other Rights were made Sacred even those of Magna Charta and the Coronation Oaths themselves not excepted could much less be terrified from invading those Rights which could pretend to no other Sacredness than what had been derived from the intervention of those same Holy Persons whose own Rights had been violated by him § II. THIS consideration therefore obliges our late Brethren to insist on the Precedents rather of King Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth ' s Reign which they think not so easily avoidable by us Here they tell us that all the Deprivations of the Popish Bishops were by no other than the Secular Arm. They tell us withall that the way of deprivation by Synods of Ecclesiastical Persons was in their Case perfectly impracticable No Acts could have been reputed Synodical but what had been carried by a majority of them who had been allowed votes in Synods who were only Ecclesiasticks But by this method of proceeding it was impossible that the Popish Bishops could have been deprived at all because themselves made a majority of the Episcopal Colledge Here therefore they think that we are not at liberty to question at least the validity of what was done in this affair They think we cannot do it with any consistency with the Principles on which we insist in our Plea against the present Schismaticks They think we cannot do it without subverting the Rights of those same Fathers for whose Rights we are our selves so eagerly concern'd For if those un-synodical deprivations of the Popish Bishops then were null and invalid the Popish Bishops were still the true Bishops of their respective Dioceses to whom all the Offices of the Subjects of those Dioceses were still in Conscience due And that on the same Principles on which we pretend our deprived Fathers to be still in Conscience the Bishops of those Dioceses of which they are said to be deprived and that they have still a Title to the Episcopal Dues of the same Dioceses from those who were Subjects to them before the deprivation on account of the invalidity of their deprivation as not being Synodical This being so they think it will follow further that the first Protestant Bishops must by our Principles have been Schismaticks as having been ordained into full Sees that they must therefore not have been second Bishops but none at all according to our Reasoning on St. Cyprian ' s principles And this Nullity in the Original they conceive sufficient to affect the whole Succession derived from that Original Thus they think we cannot maintain any Right in our present Fathers if vacancies made by Lay Deprivations be not allowed sufficient to legitimate their Titles who are possessed of those Sees which are vacated by no other Power than what is Laical This I take to be the utmost of what they have to say upon this Argument § III. I should most heartily congratulate the zeal of these Objectors for our Church were it really such as it is pretended to be But I can by no means commend any zeal for any particular modern Church whatsoever in opposition to the Catholick Church of the first and purest Ages We cannot take it for a Reformation that differs from that Church which ought to be the Standard of Reformation to all later degenerous Ages at least in things so essential to the subsistence and perpetuity of the Church as these are which concern the Independence of the Sacred on the Civil Authority Nor is it for the honour of our dear Mother to own her deviation in things of so great importance from the Primitive Rule much less to pretend her precedent for over-ruling an Authority so much greater than hers so much nearer the Originals so much more Universal so much less capable of corruption or of agreement in any point that had been really a corruption It is impossible that ever the present Breaches of the Church can be reconciled if no particular Churches must ever allow themselves the liberty of varying from what has actually been received by them since the Ages of divisions the very reception thereof having proved the cause of those divisions If therefore our modern Churches will ever expect to be again united it must be by acknowledgment of errors in particular Churches at least in such things as have made the differences and which whilst they are believed must make them irreconcilable Such things could never proceed from Christ who designing his whole Church for one Body and one Communion could never teach Doctrines inconsistent â—iâ—h such Unity and destructive of Communion And why should a Church such as ours is which acknowledges her self fallible be too pertinacious in not acknowledging mistakes in her self when the differences even between Churches which cannot all pretend to be in the Right whilst they differ and differ so greatly from each other are a manifest demonstration of errors in Authorities as great as her own Nor can any such acknowledgments of actual errors be prejudicial to Authority where the decisions of the Authority are to be over-ruled not by private Judgments but by a greater Authority And if any Authority be admitted as compâ—â—â—nt for arbitrating the present differences of Communion be 〈…〉 our modern Churches I know none that can so fairly pretend to it as that of the Primitive Catholick Church Besides the other advantages she had for knowing the Primitive Doctrines above any modern ones whatsoever she has withal those advantages for a fair decision which
promoting it This will therefore put us further upon examining whether the part acted by Cranmer was really contributive to a Reformation Had Reformation been nothing else but a Negative a removal of Papal Tyranny that to be sure was sufficiently ruined by those Principles But Reformation is a mean between Anarchy on one side as well as Tyranny on the other and is therefore equally ruined by either of the Extreams For if we consider that it is the Church which was to be reformed and that the Church as a Church is a Society it can be no Reformation which reduces it to either of the Extreams But of the two that will less deserve the name which perfectly destroys the Government of the Church and thereby dissolves the Society that was the thing to be reformed And these are the plain consequences from those Principles by which Archbishop Cranmer acted If they freed the Church from the Tyranny then in being they naturally introduced a Tyranny of more pernicious consequence than that which had been ejected by them a Tyranny of another Body of Interests frequently inconsistent with hers and withal deprived her of all security from what further Invasions soever the Lay Magistrate should be pleased to make upon her Indeed they deprived her of all possible security for her very being And though these Principles might make those who were acted by them do her kindnesses whilst her disorders lay in excess yet when that Reformation which was advanced by them had reduced her to a just mediocrity whatever should be attempted further would be Injury not Reformation Which ought by all means to make Prudent and well-meaning Historians wary how much soever they might like the things of recommending the Example to Posterity To do so is to encourage Enemies for the future and to commend them for being so when they shall be tempted to think themselves therein to follow the Examples of celebrated Heroes Archbishop Cranmer particularly could upon neither account deserve such Elogies His Principles were not naturally such as were likely to benefit the Church but to ruine her Nor were those Principles consistent with any probability of good meaning to her when he shewed himself so partial to the Magistrate against her not only against the majority of his own Order but against the Principles of his own Education upon so very small appearances on that side and against so great evidence to the contrary As little reason there is for that advantageous Character our Historian gives his other Hero the Duke of Somerset He it was that advanced the Sacriledge of the former Reign against Monasteries and now in the time of his own Protectorship against the Universities themselves Our Historian himself has published a very angry Letter of his to Bishop Ridley for opposing his designed beginnings of it in the suppression of Clare-Hall If it must be represented as Heroical to betray the Rights and rob the Revenues of the Church if it be represented so by Ecclesiasticks themselves how naturally must this tend to the encouraging the like Practices for the future How little does this become the Office of an Ecclesiastical Historian who ought to make the true Interests of the Church the Standard of his censures as they are indeed in themselves the greatest that can be by all Rules of just Estimation I heartily and seriously recommend these things to the second thoughts of that able Author not only as to his Panegyricks upon the Enemies of the Church but as to his frequent Satyrs on his own Order His meaning in both I will not take upon me to censure But let himself judge of the obvious tendency of them in this unhappy Irreligious Age we live in wherein men greedily lay hold on such Authorities as his for countenancing their wicked designs against the Church and Religion in general For my part I cannot see how the Duke of Somerset could reconcile any true zeal for Religion and the Church with his Sacrilegious designs against that very same Church whose Communion was owned by him § X. BUT to return to Archbishop Cranmer I know none of even our present considering Adversaries who either proceed on these Principles as true or who have attempted to reconcile them with the Interests of the Church or the Reformation Even the Historian himself censures them as singular Opinions in the Archbishop And so they were even in the sense of the Bishops of those times as appears from that number of them who were concerned in that Consult Few of them were for those Opinions so much for the Interest of the Secular Prince and none so thoroughly as he Nor wou'd the Court venture to trust the tryal of these Opinions to a Synod of the Bishops This made Bonner ' s Commission who perhaps gave the first Precedent of such a Commission have so few Followers that took out the like Commissions even in those unhappy times Afterwards in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the VIII and the beginning of King Edward the VI. some more of the Court Faction imitated him There was one of a Bishop of Worcester in the beginning of King Edward ' s time transcribed for our Historians use though not published by him in the same Stile with that of the Archbishop But this might have been a consequence of that Thought of the young King himself expressed in his second Paper for not trusting the Bishops with the entire exercise of the Ecclesiastical Power and perhaps of an Order of Council pursuant to it or at the utmost of the Act made in the last year of King Henry the VIII which we shall mention hereafter But their little constancy in obliging all the Bishops to do so is a great Presumption of the difficult reception these Sacrilegious Principles met with even in those Ages But whatever reception they wet with then it is very manifest that they are singular now Our Historian himself observes that Bonner after his taking out this Commission might well be called one of the Kings Bishops Intimating that he did not deserve the name of Christ ' s. And our Adversaries who have yet appeared against us in this Question have generally owned even our deprived Fathers themselves as valid Bishops as ever both as to the Episcopal Character and as to all exercises of Spiritual Power relating to the Catholick Church notwithstanding the pretended Deprivation They only deny that they have now any Right to their particular districts and Dioceses which being vacated by the Lay Power may therefore excuse their Successors from Intrusion and Usurpation But the Hypothesis of Archbishop Cranmer would better have accounted for all that their Cause obliges them to defend For if the Apostolical Predecessors could derive a Power to our Bishops undeprivable by the Civil Magistrate they might consequently derive to them a Right to districts confined to the exercise of that Spiritual Power as independent on him as the Spiritual Power it self And if
Authority was not supposed derived from him it will not follow that it was deprivable by him And if it were not then all the obligation the King could lay upon the Bishops to do as he would have them could not be in Conscience but in Interest so far only as they thought the inconveniences they might incur by his displeasure greater than those the Church might suffer by that imposition on their liberty This therefore might be born with by the Bishops so far as they might judge it reconcilable with the Churches interests And that indeed no more could be intended appears from a Paper published by Bishop Burnet from a Cottonian M S. For there is a full acknowledgment of a distinct Authority in the Bishops from the Potestas gladii lodged in the King Yet it is signed by Cromwell and that after his second and more ample Commission because he signs before the Archbishops And long after this Act between the years 1537. and 1538. as the Bishop himself conjectures Thus far therefore Cromwell himself was not very positive in that Opinion no nor Cranmer who here subscribes among the rest which makes the Spiritual Authority derived from the King So far it was then from being the Authorized Sense of the Legislators But I cannot by any means think it commendable in the Prince to impose even so far though the Right of external force be indeed his Should the Church follow his example she has as good a Right to impose on his Actings in Temporal Causes by her Spiritual Censures as he can pretend to for his interposing in her Spiritual Affairs by his Temporal Force For he cannot pretend to a more immediate Title from God for his Temporal Force than she can for her Right of inflicting Spiritual Censures And if it should be thought reasonable for either of them to make use of that Right of coercion which justly belongs to them both for imposing on the other in matters not belonging to them it would certainly be more reasonable for the Spiritual Power to impose on the Temporal in order to Spirituals than for the Temporal Power to impose upon the Spiritual in order to Temporals For my part I would rather that both would keep within their own bounds that as we must render to God the things that are Gods so we may also render to Caesar the things that are Caesars But whether the Laity did in this Act assume more than what was really their due I am not so much coâ—cerned at present It is sufficient that what was assumed by them was not sufficient either directly or by any necessary consequence to put it in their power to deprive our Bishops of their Spiritual Authority § XV. HOWEVER though hitherto they did not yet at length our Legislators of those times did advance the Supremacy as high as Archbishop Cranmer ' s Principles would warrant them But it was not before the later end of that Sacrilegious Reign In the seven and thirtieth year of it there was a scruple started concerning the Lay Doctors of the Civil Law by whom the Discipline of the Ecclesiastical Courts was managed after the death of Cromwell on account of their being Lay-men whether the Spiritual Censures issued out by such could have any effect with regard to Conscience This scruple being raised on that account of their being Lay-men was conceived by the Parliament by manifest consequence to affect the Kings Power also for such Censures because he also was a Lay-man This could not have been if they had not intended to assert such a Right in the King though a Lay-man even for Spiritual Censures For had they intended no more than that the King by his Lay Power should only oblige Spiritual Persons to do their duty in exerting that Spiritual Power which they had received not from him but from God himself in this case the consequence objected against the Supremacy had been out of doors and that which had signified nothing would have needed no remedy When therefore to prevent this consequence they assert the Supremacy in such a Sense as may qualifie the King though a Lay-man to a Right to inflict such Censures they must consequently mean it so as to assert this Right to him as a Supream Magistrate though not invested with any Power from God distinct from that of the Sword Accordingly they tell us that his most royal Majesty is and hath always justly been by the Word of God Supream Head in the Earth of the Church of England and hath full Power and Authority to correct punish and repress all manner of Heresies Errors Vices Sins Abuses Idolatries Hypocrisies and Superstitions sprung and growing within the same and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction They tell us withal the occasion of this Objection That though the Decrees and Constitutions by which the exercise of Spiritual Jurisdiction had been confined to Holy Orders had been utterly abolished by the Act of the five and twentieth year of this same Reign yet because the contrary is not used nor put in practise by the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it addeth or at least may give occasion to some evil disposed Persons to think and little to regard the Proceedings and Censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vicegegerent Officials Commissaries Judges and Visitors being also Lay and married men to be of little or none effect or force And Forasmuch as your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head of the Church of England and also of Ireland to whom by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct all Vice and Sin whatsoever and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto Therefore it is enacted that Doctors of the Civil Law though Lay and married being put in office by any one having Authority under the King his Heirs and Successors may lawfully execute all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and all Censures and Coercions appertaining or in any wise belonging unto the same Here the Bishops are denied to have any manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from the Prince Here all Authority and Power is said to be wholly given him to hear and determine all manner Causes Ecclesiastical Here he is said by the Word of God to have full Power and Authority to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And all this is asserted as their Sense of the Title of Head and of the Prerogative of Supremacy If so the Bishops can have no Power but what is derived from the Lay Magistrate for all this is challenged to him as he is a Lay-man and therefore none but what must be supposed deprivable by him Then after their deprivation their Character is gone
either of Gods word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify But that only Prerogative which we see to have been given to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil sword the stubborn and evil doers Here we have the Explication in the Injunctions approved by our Church her self who gives us the same sense in her own words expressly and is fully satisfied with our believing the Prince ' s Right to govern both sorts of Persons By this we may also know her meaning in the words immediately preceding where she mentions all Causes that she did mean only such Causes as were absolutely necessary for making the Prince's Right perfectly practicable for governing the Persons of the Ecclesiasticks We are also here clearly and expressly discharged from all Obligation to believe Archbishop Cranmers singular Opinion and consequently from the belief of that Supremacy which was grounded on that Opinion without which I do not see how our Adversaries can ever be able to justify the validity of these Lay-deprivations And none that I know of doubts but that this Article at least of our Church does as much concern our times as those wherein it was first made § XXIV YET further that no Authority may be wanting we have this same Explication in the Injunctions expressly referred to and ratified in an Act of Parliament of the same Reign of Queen Elizabeth still in force and unrepealed The words are those Provided also that the Oath expressed in the said Act made in the first year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Majesty's Injunctions published in the first year of her Majesty's Reign That is to say to confess and acknowledge in her Majesty her Heirs and Successors none other Authority than that was challenged and lately used by the noble King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. as in the said Admonition more plainly may appear The word Admonition is taken from the Title of that particular Injunction wherein it is stiled an Admonition to simple Men deceived by Malicious that there may be no doubt but that the forementioned Injunction is intended in this Act. And that the Supremacy here assumed by the Queen and said to be the same that was challenged and lately used by King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. may not be so understood as to exclude the benefit of the Interpretation here referred to Indeed such a rigorous Construction had been perfectly to overthrow the whole Design of the Act in referring to it But that very Expression is used in the Injunction it self from whence the Parliament took it and therefore is to be understood in a sense consistent with the rest of the Injunction and therefore in a sense consistent with the renunciation of that singular Opinion of Archbishop Cranmer how much soever it may seem to have been supposed in the words of the Acts and to have been therefore the private sense of the Legislators themselves Yet they as well as the Queen her self think it was never the Legislators design even in those Reigns where it seems indeed to have been their sense to impose the belief of it on those who should take the Oath This must necessarily have been their sense when they refer us to the Injunction as expressing that sense of the Supremacy which they allowed and approved This must make the Explication in the Injunction theirs and consequently must make the true design of this Act as full to our purpose as the Injunction it self I need not now add to this Authority the Explication of the Supremacy by Archbishop Usher and approved of by King James the I. Much less the Opinions of the generality of our Divines since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth against that Opinion of Archbishop Cranmer without which as I have shewn it is impossible for our Adversaries to prove the validity of Lay Deprivations What some of them have reasoned from the Case of Solomon and Abiathar is the less to be regarded being destitute of Principles by which the like Practise had it really been such as they think it was can be proved allowable by the Doctrine of the Gospel and the Priesthood constituted by it nay being contrary to their own Doctrine concerning the Divine Right of Administring the Sacraments All that can be said is that by defending that Right of Solomon and by applying it to the Case of the Christian Magistrate with regard to the Popish Bishops who were of another Communion they may seem to have said things consequently applicable to our present Case of Bishops of the same Communion Yet whether they would have stood by this Consequence in Case of a Lay Deprivation of Protestant Bishops our Adversaries themselves cannot undertake and it is much more probable that many of them would not have stood by it But on the other side we can also say that when they denied the Right of Administring the Sacraments to be derived from the Magistrate they must by consequence deny the Right of Spiritual Government resulting from the Right of excluding refractory Subjects from the Sacraments and from the Spiritual Body and from the Rights annexed to that Body of CHRIST himself they must I say by necessary consequence deny this Spiritual Power to be the Magistrates Right they must by the same consequence deny all Right the Secular Magistrate can pretend to deprive of this Power which was never derived from him Thus there will be Consequence against Consequence But there is this difference between the two Consequences that ours reaches the present Case fully and directly but it may be questioned whether that of our Adversaries do so For it may well be questioned whether if the Lay Magistrate may deprive Popish Bishops of another Communion it will thence follow that he may also deprive Protestant Bishops of the same Communion as I shall shew hereafter § XXV BUT the second Canon of the year 1603. is objected against us The words are these Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Kings Majesty has not the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church or impeach in any part his Regal Supremacy in the said Causes restored to the Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein established let him be Excommunicated ipso facto and not restored but only by the Archbishop after his repentance and publick revocation of those his wicked errors Here all that is affirmed to our Adversaries purpose is only this that our Kings have the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews But what that Authority was or what the
could hinder the Bishops and the People too who were rightly informed concerning the nature of the Spiritual Society from judging Consecration necessary for obtaining that Power which is purely Spiritual And it 's being thought necessary by the Bishops was enough to oblige the Consecrating Bishops to give and the Consecrated Bishops to receive that Spiritual Power which in their Opinion could not be had otherwise then by their Consecration And intending to give and receive it what could hinder their Intentions from the usual Success when the same Solemnities were used by Persons equally Authorized to give it with those who had been used to give it formerly Nor could the Magistrate expect that to gratify him they shou'd defraud themselves of any Priviledges or Powers received by their Ancestors and convey'd as before from Persons empower'd to administer the Solemnities and Rites of Consecration Such a Singular obsequiousness and self-denial is this He could not I say either in Conscience or Equity pretend to expect unless He had secur'd it in express Terms and exacted a particular Profession a Profession that might make it inconsistent with the Bishops Veracity to give or receive the usuall Power as by the same Solemnities and Authority it had been given and received by their Ancestors Rather on the contrary the Permission of the samâ— Solemn Rites and the same Authority in administring them as before without any new Security against the usual effect is an Argument the Prince left it to their Liberty to intend the giving and receiving the same Spiritual Power from CHRIST as had been usually conveyed by the same Ministry He therefore contented him self with the Security given him by the Patents that from whomsoever they received the Right of being Bishops in regard to Conscience yet they should not be Bishops in Law intitled to Baronies and revenues any longer than he pleased This being so it will follow that what they did before Deprivation was valid in Conscience and in Law also but what they did afterwards though that might also be valid in Concsience yet it was not to be vaild in Law Our first Consecrations were of the former sort and therefore were not the less valid in Conscience for having the accession of a validity in Law Thus our first Consecrations might derive a Title to our Present Fathers in Conscience not deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate with regard to Conscience GOD awaken the zeal of our late Fathers and Brethern for asserting these Rights in Conscience which are so essential to their being our Fathers and our Brethren and for the Religion and Communion of our late common Churches in these Kingdoms And may our common LORD plead the Cause of his distressed and deserted Spouse THE END The Independency of Bishops on the Sate pretended to be contrary to the Oath of Supremacy * Injunct Q. Eliz. An. 1559. 5 †Eliz. 1. In App. to Bishop Burnet's 〈◊〉 of Refor And contrary to the Principles on which the Popish Bishops were deprived and our present Succession depends The Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greater than that of any modern particular one * P. 14. †Defence of the Church of England p. 20 21 22. Even with regard to our particular Church our behaviour signifies more love and concern for her than that of our late Brethren does We shew our greater 〈◊〉 to our Church particularly in not yielding so 〈◊〉 as they do that she should lose bee Rights on any terms What we do is perfectly consistent with the Authorized explication of the Supremacy vested in the King Arch-â—p Cranmers Opinions in 〈◊〉 cury the VIII and Edw. the VI. time perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authoâ—â—â— See those Papers published by Bishop Stallingfleet Iren. c. ult and by Bishop Burnet Hist. of Resor Part. I. Collect. n. XXI B. III. Part II. Collect. Num. 2. Archbishâ—p Câ—â—â—mer's Au 〈…〉 〈◊〉 these matter noâ— at all Vol. I. Book III p. 267. It is not for the Interest of the Church or the Reformation that his Authority iâ— these things should be regarded Part. I. B. III. p. 204. Part. II. B. II. p. 243. His Opinions in this matter no more agreeable to the sense of our present Adversaries than to ours P. I. B. III. p. 267. The Supremacy and Title of Head when first assumed by Henry the VIII consistent with our Doctrine 24 Hen. VIII 12. When the King gave the encroaching Commission to Cr 〈…〉 it was not 〈◊〉 â—greeable to the tru 〈…〉 of the Legis 〈…〉 Vol. I. B. III. R. 278. The Appeal allowed from the Archbishops to the Kings Commissioners in Chancery no Argument of any Spiritual Power derived from the King 25 H. VIII 10. The Supremacy explained 26 H. VIII 1. not contrary to our Doctrine in this Cause Addend to the First Vol. Num. V. The 〈◊〉 as explained in 37 H. VIII 17. full to our Adversaries purpose and the sense of Archbishop Cranmer 25 II. VIII 〈◊〉 19. The same Notion of the Supremacy continued also under King Edw. the VI. Bishop Burnet Vol. II. Col. B. II. The Kings Re 〈…〉 Pap. 2. King Henry the VIIIths Reign by no means to be allowed for an Age of Precedents Queen Elizabeth explained the Supremacy in a Sense conâ—stent with our Principles Bishop Burnet p. 11. B. 111. Col. num 2. 1 Eliz. 1. Injunct by Queen Esâ—z Edition by Bishop Sparrow p. 77. 78. That Explication discharges'us now from any obligation to believe Archbishop Cranmer's Principles Resor Leg. Eccl. de Excom c. 2. De offic Jurisd omn. Judic What the Queen requires we can sincerely undertake and in a sense fully answering the Imposition of the Legislators â—he Queen's Injunction excuses us from swearing to the Supremacy over Spiriritual Persons in Causes purely Spiritual This Injunction of Queen Elizabeth still in force The Explication in the Injunctions authorized by our Church in her XXXVIIth Article The same Explication of the Injunctions confirmed also by Act of Parliament 5 Elizab. 1. It is rather supposed than contradicted by the second Canon The Practise of the Supremacy to our times no argument of the imposed sense of the Legislators against us Can. 12â— The Objection proposed that our present Protestant Succession seems to depend on the validity of the Deprivation of the last Popish Bishops which was no other than Laical The Lay Deprivations of those Popish Bishops who took out Lay Commissions for their Episcopal Power does not by any just consequence affect our present Case Vid. Specimen against Bishop Burnet p. 52 53. The Popish Bishops were of another Communion And therefore needed no other Deprivation than that of the Lay Magistrate This Doctrine agreeable exactly to the Sense and Practise of Antiquity If the Popish Bishops had had a better Title yet that could not have illegitimated Successors any longer than their own Lives If the Popish Bishops then had the better Title yet their discontinuance of their Succession has made their Title worse now 〈◊〉 Settle 〈…〉 give Right â—â—ere no better â—iâ—ht is injured by them This is proved from the Donatist and Luciferian Disputes Opt. Milev cont Parmenian L. 1. Artem. Onâ—ir 〈◊〉 1. c. 14 Adv. Euciferian They who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power might yet keep their better Title Part. II. §. LV. p. 133. Ib. p. 131.