stretching their Jurisdiction a little too much on the other hand those who have submitted so tamely to the one have no reason to reproach us for bearing the other Servitude even supposing that we granted that to be the Case And if in the time of our Reformation some of our Bishops or other Writers have carried the Royal Supremacy too far either in Acts of Convocation or in their Writings as those things are personal Matters in which we are not at all concerned who do not pretend to assert an Infallibility in our Church so their excess in this was a thing so natural that we have all possible reason to excuse it or at least to censure it very gently For as all Parties and Persons are carried by a Bias very common to Mankind to magnify that Authority which favours and supports them so the extreams of the Papal Tyranny and the Ecclesiastical Power that had formerly prevailed might have carried them a little too far into the opposite Extream of raising the Civil Power too high But after all we find that when Theodosius came to the Empire he saw the Eastern half of it over-run with Arrianism and as the Arrians were in Possession and were the more numerous so they had Synods of Bishops that had met oft and in vast numbers and had judged in their favours Their Synods were both more numerous than that of Nice and were a more just Representative of the Catholick Church since there were very few of the Western Bishops in that which was held at Nice And as for the Frauds and Violences that were put in practice to carry Matters in those Synods it is very like the Arrians both denied them and were not wanting to recriminate on the Orthodox So when there was a pretence of General Councils on both hands here was a very perplexed Case But Theodosius found a short way to get out of it and therefore instead of calling a new General Council or of examining the History of the several pretended Councils which ought to have been done according to our Authors System he pass'd a Law which is the first Law in Iustinians Code by which he required all Persons to profess that Faith which was profess'd by Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria and yet this Law which was a higher Invasion on the Ecclesiastical Authority than any that was committed in our Reformation was never so much as censured on the contrary Theodosius was highly magnified for it There is no reason to imagine that he paid any particular Respect to the See of Rome in this for his joining Peter of Alexandria with Damasus shews that he made the Faith of these Bishops the measures of that Doctrine which he resolved to protect not because of the Authority of their Sees but because he believed their Faith was Orthodox The Case was almost the same in England in which it was pretended that the Independent Authority of our Metropolitans ought to be asserted which was established by the Council of Nice and that many Corruptions in the Worship as for instance the Worship of Images that was condemned by two very numerous General Councils one in the East at Constantinople and another in the West at Francfort ought to be reformed If upon all this the Supreme Civil Authority of this Nation had enacted such a Law as Theodosius had done commanding all to follow the Doctrine profess'd by the two Arch-Bishops of this Church it had been no other but a copying after that Pattern which Theodosius had set us with the Approbation of all Antiquity and yet it cannot be pretended that our Kings and Parliament acted in so summary a way For they went much more slowly and maturely to Work. Upon the whole matter the Civil Authority hath a Power to command every thing that is just and lawful and in that Case the Laws that flow from it ought to be obeyed And if the matter of the Laws is sinful we must not indeed obey in that case but we must submit and bear what we do not like and suffer where we cannot obey So that lawful or unlawful seem to be the only measures that ought to govern our Obedience And as in the matters of natural Religion and Morality no Body can deny that the Civil Authority hath a full Scope tho that is still limitted by this that there ought to be no Injustice Immorality or Turpitude in the Actions that are commanded but where this is not we are bound to obey all the Laws that relate to those matters and where it is we are bound to submit and to bear our burden without giving our selves the trouble to enquire how far the Civil Authority ought to be carried in such matters We set the same measures to our Obedience in matters of revealed Religion If the King passes Laws contrary to Scripture we cannot indeed obey them because of that higher Authority to which we are subject and in Obedience to which we pay all Submission to those who God hath set over us but if they are lawful and conform to the Scripture we ought to obey them without examining whether the King hath proceeded in the passing such Laws by the Rules that become quiet and regular Times And if a Hezekiah or a Iosias should rise up and finding the greater part of his Subjects the Priests as well as the People engaged in Idolatry if he should reform them and suppress that corrupt way of Worship we ought instead of examining critically the method or steps by which he had brought about that change rather to rejoyce in the goodness of God for blessing us with such a Prince So that let men men write and dispute as long as they will on these matters the whole Cause must be brought to this short Issue Either the things that our Princes and Legislators enacted at the Reformation were in themselves just and good and necessary or not if they were then they having an Authority over us in all lawful things as they did well to enact these Laws so we do well to obey them But if they were neither just nor good nor necessary then we acknowledg that as it was a Sin in them to enact them so it were a Sin in us to obey them And all other reasonings upon this Subject are but Illusions by which weak minds may perhaps be wrought upon but they will appear to be such evident Fallacies to men of Sense that without entring into a strict enquiry of what may be alledged for them they will easily shake them off In short if the Reformation appears to be a good thing in it self then all arguing against the manner of it is but meer trifling and looks like men who lie in wait to deceive and to mislead People by false Colours of Truth CHAP. IV. Reflection on the eight Theses laid down by our Author UPon the Grounds that have hitherto been opened it will not be hard to make a very clear
been extremely arrogant and obstinate and zealous beyond knowledg and tho they had suffered for a good Cause yet suffering for it on good or reasonable grounds 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 And here some Instances are given but if this Period will close it self it may for our Author who seldom takes care of such small matters leaves it in this unfinished condition I will not examine the truth of this Maxim but will only take notice that since all Protestants agree in this that the Ground of our Faith is that which appears to us to be the Sense of the Scripture our Author hath by this Limitation of his former gentleness towards us delivered us all over to the Secular Arm and so God have Mercy on our Souls for it is plain he will have none upon our Bodies XI He quarrels with the Privy-Council for imprisoning of Bonner because he said he would observe the Injunctions that were sent him if they were not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church the fault imputed here to him I suppose being that he refused to obey any Injunctions of the King when repugnant to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church But since he had a mind to blacken that time he might have as well said that they found fault with him because he promised to obey the Injunctions if they were not contrary to Gods Law and that thereby it appeared that they preferred their Injunctions to the Laws of God as well as to the Laws of the Church and by our Author 's taking no notice of the first Branch of Bonner's Exception it may be inferred That all his Concern is about the Laws of the Church and so they be secured he troubles himself little what becomes of the Law of God But if he had weighed this matter as he ought to do he would have found that this Exception is very ill grounded When a Form of a Subscription is demanded there is no Government in the World that will accept of one that indeed signifies nothing at all for it is visible that a Subscription made with those Reserves signifies nothing therefore if Bonner had acted as became his Character he should have directly refused the Subscription of such Injunctions as he found to be contrary to the Laws of God or to such Laws of the Church as he thought bound his Conscience But the Protestation he made gave a very just ground to the Government to proceed against him according to Law. XII Our Author intending to aggravate the Proceedings against Gardiner shews his great Judgment in setting down the Article relating to the Kings Supremacy at full length whereas he had only named the others for he could have invented nothing that must needs render all his Exceptions to the King's Supremacy more visibly unjust than this doth which is in these Words That his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church of England hath full Power and Authority to make and set forth Laws Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion and Orders in the said Church for repressing all Errors and Heresies and other Enormities and Abuses so that the same Alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scriptures or Law of God. This was no other than what Gardiner had over and over again both by his Oaths and his Writings advanced and the restriction set on it was so just that one would think there lay no possible Exception to it Here there is no claim to the declaring what were Errors and Heresies but only to the repressing them and this is done by the Secular Arm even where men are burnt for Heresie Besides the Power that according to our Author belongs to the Pastors of the Church is either founded on the Scriptures or it is not if it is not founded on the Scriptures there is no great regard to be had to it but if it is founded on it then it it clearly excepted by the words of this Article so it is hard to see of what use this is to our Author unless it be to shew him his Injustice XIII He tells us That all that which had been done under King Henry and King Edward was Annulled by an equal Authority under Queen Mary But tho I acknowledg he was both the Soveraign and the Parliament yet there was neither Justice nor Moderation in the Charge now made equal to what had been done before A great deal might be said concerning the Election of the Members of Parliament and the Practices upon them and of the turning out a Multitude of the Clergy before the Laws were changed The Disorders and Irregularities in the Disputes had nothing of that fair Dealing in them that had appeared in King Edward's time and whereas all the Severity of King Edward's days was the Imprisoning of three or four Bishops and the turning out some of the other Clergy he knows well how matters went under Queen Mary So that we cannot be denied this Glory that a Spirit of Justice and Moderation appear'd at every time that the Reformation prevail'd Whereas things went much otherwise in this sad Revolution in which our Author Glories so much So that if the good or ill Behaviours of the several Parties as they had their turns in the Administration of Affairs furnishes a just Prejudice even in favour of the Cause it self we have this on our side as fully as we can wish for XIV He tells us That the Bishoprick of Durham was first kept void in King Edward's days and last of all it was by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue If our Author had examined the Records of Parliament he would have found that the Act that related to the Bishoprick of Durham did not at all propose the Increase of the Kings Revenue but the dividing of one Bishoprick into two and the raising and endowing of a new Cathedral Church all which must have risen to about Four thousand Marks of old Rents which considering how long Lands were let near the Borders did certainly very near exhaust the whole Revenue of that See. This is indeed of no great Importance to the main Cause For if sacrilegious Men went into the Reformation hoping to enrich themselves by it this is nothing but what falls out in all great Revolutions And it is plain our Author took up general Reports very easily that so he might make a Clamour with them against our Church But if some that gave an outward compliance to the Doctrine of our Church were really a Reproach to it he of all Men for a certain Reason ought not to insist on it Since we are no more accountable for the Duke of Northumberland's Actions than we are for his own XV. He tells us That the Bishops turned out
which they account Infallible It is true some have thought they could get out of this difficulty by denying these to be the Acts of that Council But if our Author be the same Person with him that writ concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist he is of another mind and doth acknowledg that those Canons are the true Acts of that great Assembly and not only the Designs of the Pope It is true he saith the sense of the Canon concerning the secular Powers is by Protestants mistaken But he hath not yet given himself the trouble of laying before us the true sense of that Canon and one would think that he who writ the Treatise that is now under Examination had very favourable thoughts of the Doctrine of Subjects shaking off an heretical Prince for he reckons up the many risings that were in K. Edwards days chiefly for matter of Religion as a proof that the Body of the Clergy went not into that change Which rising saith he of the Laity in such numbers for their former way of Religion would not have been had not their Clergy justified it unto them Rising is a soft word for Rebellion and one would think that it would have afforded no small matter of reproach against us if we brought in a company of Rebels to make up a Muster of our Religion But to own that the Clergy justified it to them without adding the least Word expressing our Author's dislike of this shews plainly enough that how good a Subject soever our Author may be to a Prince of his own Religion yet he thinks a Catholick Clergy may be able to justifie to the Laity a Rising against a Heretical Prince upon the account of Religion And it seems our Author had a great mind to make a huge appearance of his Catholick Rebels in K. Edwards days For besides that he speaks of Risings in many more Counties then are mentioned by the Books of that time he also represents all those Risings to have been upon the account of Religion tho the History makes it clear that the Risings over England were chiefly occasioned by Parks and Enclosures and that it was a rage of the Peasants against the Gentry in most places chiefly in the Northfolk-Rebellion where Religion was not at all pretended nor doth it appear that any pretended Religion except those of Devonshire so that our Author would make his Party and the Clergy more Rebellious than indeed they were In this whole Period he seems to have been forsaken of common Sense CHAP. III. Some general Considerations on the Regal Supremacy that was raised so high at the Reformation OUR Author hath brought together many Acts of Parliament with their pompous Preambles that seem to carry the Kings Power in Ecclesiastical Matters to a very Indefinite degree and upon all this he triumphs often as if this was so improper that it alone is enough to blast the whole Reformation Our Author is much more concerned to justifie all Papal Bulls than we can be to justifie all the Words of our Laws especially the Rhetorick that is in their Preambles If he believes the Pope infallible the general Parts of Bulls that set forth the Doctrine of the Church are such solemn Declarations that he must be determined by them But at lowest he believes the Popes to be the Centers of the Catholick Unity and all Bishops are bound by Oath to obey all their Decrees and Ordinances Now when our Author will undertake to justifie all the Preambles of Bulls that are in the Bullarium then we may undertake to justifie all the flourishes that may be in any Act of Parliament When any Authority is asserted in general and indefinite Terms these are always to be understood with those Restrictions and Limitations that the nature of things require to be supposed even when they are not expressed St. Paul expresses the Obedience of Wives to their Husbands in terms so extreamly extended that as the Church is subject unto Christ so ought the Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing He expresses also the Duty of Children in as comprehensive terms Children obey your Parents in all things Now if one would draw Inferences from the extent of these words he might taking the liberty that our Author takes upon some of the Expressions that are in our Acts of Parliament represent the Authority that St. Paul vests both in Husbands and Parents as a very boundless and a very extravagant thing This is enough to shew that in all those large Phrases of Obedience there are some necessary Reserves and Exceptions to be understood and if this Qualification is necessary even in writings that were inspired it is no wonder if some of the Rhetorick of our Acts of Parliament wants a little of this Correction It is a very unreasonable thing to urge some general Expressions or some stretches of the Royal Supremacy and not to consider that more strict Explanation that was made of it both in K. Henry the 8th's time and under Q. Elizabeth That were so clear that if we had to do with Men that had not resolved before-hand not to be satisfied one would think there could be no room for any further cavilling In K. Henry's time the extent of the Kings Supremacy was defined in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man that was set forth as the Standard of the Doctrine of that time and it was upon this that all people were obliged to take their measures and not upon some Expressions either in Acts of Parliament or Acts of the Convocation nor upon some stretches of the Kings Jurisdiction In this then it is plainly said That with relation to the Clergy the King is to oversee them and to cause that they execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and especially in those Points which by Christ and his Apostles was committed to them And to this it is added That Bishops and Priests are bound to obey all the Kings Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God. So that here is expressed that necessary Reserve upon their Obedience it being provided that they were only bound to obey when the Laws were not contrary to the Laws of God. The other Reserve is also made of all that Authority which was committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Bishops and Priests and we are not ashamed to own it freely that we see no other Reserves upon our obedience to the King besides these So that these being here specified there was an unexceptionable Declaration made of the Extent of the Kings Supremacy yet because the term Head of the Church had something in it that seemed harsh there was yet a more express Declaration made of this matter under Q. Elizabeth of which indeed our Author hath taken notice tho I do not find he takes notice of the former which he ought to have done if he had intended to have represented this matter sincerely to the world which I confess seems not
the Civil and Temporal Heads of our Church XXIV He tells us that the Monks could not give away that which they had only for term of Life I know not how this comes to be delivered by our Author at a time when the surrender of so many Charters to the King hath been judged Legal though it was made by men who had no Title to these and who were so far from having a Right to them for Term of Life that they had only the Administration of them in an Annual Magistracy so that our Author had best consider how he advances such Positions lest he doth as much hurt one way as he thinks to do service another In a word our Author hath pleaded the Cause of the Monasteries and hath arraigned the Suppression of them severely tho as he said concerning the burning of Hereticks he would not be thought to plead for it in this place XXV He accuses King Henry for giving Dispensations in matters of Marriage against Ecclesiastical Canons and because he declared all Marriages to be lawful that were not against Gods Law Here if in any thing the perverseness of the Church of Rome appears or rather their design to oblige the World to have oft recourse to them to pay them well and to depend much on them they have prohibited Marriage in many degrees that were not forbid by the Law of God and to ballance this they have suffered Marriages to be contracted in the Degrees forbid by God for the Pope's Power of Dispensing is promoted both ways they have added a new Contrivance of Spiritual Kindred and as the Prohibitions that they have set up were unknown to the Ancient Church so the Degrees that they have declared dispensable were believed by the Ancient Church to be moral and indispensable And yet after all this corruption of Ecclesiastical Discipline they are in great wrath at the Reformers because they thought it was fit to return to the Degrees forbid by the Law of Moses and to cut off these superadded Prohibitions which were inventions to bring grist to that Mill where all things were to be had so men will come up to the Price There follow here a great many Instances in which King Henry exercised his Supremacy which our Author aggravates all he can But the Considerations that were proposed in the first Part seem fully to satisfie all the difficulties that can be thought to arise out of them XXVI He tells us that such of the Privy Council as complied not with the Changes made in King Edward's Days were turned out after some time and names Bishop Tonstal Wriothesly the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel and he adds That the King had but one Parliament continued by Prorogation from Session to Session till at last it ended in the Death of the King. Here are Matters of no great Consequence I confess but these shew how careless our Author was in examining the Story of our Reformation and how easy he was to take up any Reports that might blast it It will not appear a very extraordinary thing to see Privy Counsellors turned out that do not concur with the Designs that prevail Some such things have possibly fallen out in our own Time and Men have no great cause to complain of a severe Administration when this is all the Rigour that is shewed to those who oppose themselves to the Tide But our Author was misinformed in all these Particulars Tonstal went along with all that was done and was contented to protest in Parliament against some Laws but as soon as they were made he gave a ready Obedience to them and continued to be still in the Council during the Duke of Somerset's Ministry Wriothesly was not turned out till after some time but immediately upon King Henry's Death he had past an illegal Patent upon which to prevent a severer Sentence he resign'd his Place but he continued still to be of the Privy Council And the Earl of Arundel continued to be of the Privy Council for many Years and long after fell to be in ill terms with the Duke of Northumberland and upon that an Enquiry was made into his Administration and he was fined 12000 Pounds But it is no wonder to find our Author mistaken in matters of this Nature when in so publick a thing as that King Edward had but one Parliament in his whole Reign he hath not been at the pains to turn over the Book of Statutes for there he would have found that King Edward's first Parliament was dissolved the 15th of April 1552 and a Second Parliament was called and opened the First of March following and was dissolved the last Day of that same Month. So that there were two Parliaments in this Reign and the Second was dissolved by an Act of the King 's and not by his Death I do confess these are not great Matters yet this may be drawn out of them that our Author who pretends to have examined the Transactions of that Time with so much exactness took things upon trust without giving himself the trouble to enquire into them so critically as was necessary for one that was resolved to pass a Judgment upon them XXVII He expostulates upon the Inhibition of preaching put upon the Bishops except in their own Cathedrals which agrees ill with the Censure that Fox passes upon them as Dumb Prelates And after this there was a general Inhibition on the whole Clergy hindring them to preach till a Uniform Order of Doctrine should be set out in which some Bishops and other Learned Men were then employed by the King's Order As for this Inhibition upon Bishops to preach except in their Cathedrals it is a Fiction of our Author's for which he can give no Voucher they were not so much as restrained from giving Licences to preach much less to preach themselves over their Diocess The second and general Restraint as it was but for a very short while so the Thing is very doubtful and stands only on Fuller's Credit who was too careless a Writer to be appealed to in any Matter of Consequence XXVIII Our Author cites here the Discourse of Communion in one kind which by all appearance is that lately writ by the Bishop of Meaux This shews that the Author and the Publisher is the same Person though others pretend that the Author is dead many Years ago But it seems the Publisher thought fit at least to add some new touches and since he did that he might have thought it worth the while to have examined at least the Records published by Dr. Burnet and his History it self might have been considered as well as Mr. Fullers and Dr. Heylins But since it seems our Author thought the Discourse of the Communion in one kind fit to be recommended by him I will take the liberty to recommend the Answer to it in French by Monsieur Larroque and that lately writ in English in which the disingenuity of the Discourse
mentioned by our Author is laid open beyond all possibility of replying XXIX He tells us that the Veneration of Images was defined in a General Council the Second Nicene which Council also justifies it by Antiquity That Council hath been lately sufficiently exposed by a Learned and Judicious Pen. It was neither a General Council nor did it justify what it defined by Antiquity The falshood of some of their Allegations and the Impertinences of the rest and the Inferences drawn from those pretended Authorities are all such extravagant Things that they give a just prejudice against every thing that was defined by Men that were equally void of sincerity and of common sense XXX There follows from this to the end of the Chapter a long and laborious Vindication of the Clergy in King Edward's Time in which our Author endeavours by many Instances of which some were mentioned in the First Part to make it appear that the Clergy at that time gave only an outward compliance that they acted against their Consciences that the Severity of that Time tho it went no further than to the ejecting them out of their Benefices who refused to comply and to the imprisoning of a very few yet wrought so much upon their weakness and their love of Mony that against their Perswasions they complied both in Subscribing Swearing and Officiating in the Divine Service This shews our Author's sound and good Judgment that leads him to fancy that he hath by this Plea done any thing but blackned them in the most infamous manner that can be imagined It had been much less scandalous upon them to have owned that many of them were weak and easy Men ignorant and tractable and so were apt to be seduced but that in Q. Mary's Time they return'd again to their old Persuasions But this would not have served our Author's turn who wanted somewhat to excuse his own treacherous Compliance against his Conscience for so many Years even after he had all that Conviction which he owns in his Book But if he hopes to excuse his Crimes by shewing that his own Church hath produced in former Times Men as black and as criminal as himself we do not envy him this Apology He might perhaps have another design in it but of the same size of Sincerity and good Judgment with the other He no doubt fancied as many more perhaps did that the Church of England had many more such false Brethren as Himself in her Bosom who wanted only good Colours and a fair Occasion to declare themselves and so as he had been preparing many Books with which he hoped to overthrow us when ever the time of publishing them should come he fancied this Representation that he gives of the Complyance of the Popish Party might offer to others like himself some excuse for their dissembling so long with God and Man only that they might enjoy the Profits of a Benefice since it cannot be so much as pretended that there was any other Temptation in the case But God be thanked he hath had few Companions in his Apostacy or Treachery let him choose which he will. XXXI Our Author cites a Passage out of a Letter of Q. Mary's written in her Brother's time to the Privy-Council in which there is a Period that overthrows a great many of his Assertions She says that she was well assured that the King her Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal Now if the former part of the Citation he produces makes a little against the Changes in King Edward's time the latter part is as strong in the Justification of that which was done under K. Henry I cannot leave this without taking notice of our Author's way of citing which gives the justest cause of Suspicion that can be The words he cites are I have offended no Law unless it be a late Law of your own making for the altering Matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the Name of a Law both for c. and for the partiality used in the same Now did ever Man before our Author put an c. in such a place I have not Fox by me from whom this is cited but I am sure this way of cutting a Sentence doth not look fair XXXII I pass over many Particulars which are Repetitions of things that have been already considered relating to the Instances in which the King's Supremacy was exercised Only where he complains of the restoring the Cup to the Laity as contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance I must acknowledg his Sincerity in not pretending to carry the Violation of our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament higher than the 15th Century We are not ashamed to own that our Reformers thought it better to follow the first 14 Centuries especially since our Lord's Institution was at the Head of them then so late and so treacherous an Assembly that had overthrown all the Confidence that can be among Men as well as it had sacrilegiously robbed the People of a Right that was derived to them by our Saviour's express Words XXXIII He quarrels the Form of Ordination set out in Edward the Sixth's Time because in contradiction to all Antiquity that part was cast out by which a Bishop gives to Priests a Power to offer up Sacrifices and to say Masses for the Dead and the Living It seems our Author knows Antiquity as well as he doth the History of our Reformation otherwise he had never pretended that a Form that is no elder than the 8th Century was the Practice of all Antiquity This is so clear to all who have examined this matter that it is needless to urge it farther The Silence of all ancient Authors the Form mentioned by the 4th Council of Carthage by the Apostolical Constitutions and by Denis the Areopagite and the ancient Rituals printed by Morinus are such clear Proofs in this matter that I may well save my self a farther Labour XXXIV He gives another Exception against our Book of Ordinations that instead of the Oath of Submission to the Patriarch there was another Oath prescribed to the Temporal Prince Our Author must needs know that the Oath which was formerly sworn to the Pope was a plain Oath of Homage such as Subjects swear to their Princes by which all Bishops were bound to the Popes and to the Regalities of St. Peter as to their Leige Lord in the same form of Words in which Vassals swore Homage to their Superiour Lords and it was no wonder to see our Legislators change that into an Oath of Supremacy to our Temporal Prince In the Primitive Times there was no such thing as either Oath or Promise of Obedience to Superiours in Ordinations and it was not before the End of the 7th Century that a Promise of Obedience was requir'd yet Charles the Great found ill Effects of this and so got it to be condemned