no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever Secondly That for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop Commissioners by the Kings Highness to be appointed shall have full power and authority to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same and no further Appeals to be made These Commissioners therefore appointed by the King are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod or to the Patriarch § 34 Again 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament That no speaking doing or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the Kings Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy From which all that I would note is this that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy and do declare that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them Again it is Enacted by Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540 are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and shall suffer pains of death by Burning Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy without any Appeal as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19 c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis And the Protestants in justifying this Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Or A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People set forth by the King's Authority at that time or against the Six Articles which were in the same Act Established as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. the Publishing of which Act saith Lord Herbert p. 447. gave no little occasion of murmur since to revoke the conscience not only from its own Court but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law as is there Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. set down §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded § 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is That Henry the Eighth made no new Law See likewise his Vindic. p. 86. 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth were only declarative of old Law not enactive of new Law proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert and of the Lord Coke Reports Fifth Part. And 2ly Schism Guarded p. 61 62. That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso Fox the First of these if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke Reports §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. c. You shall find no such thing if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes You may find Appeals to the Pope or other Forreign Judge and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus to have been prohibited by former Laws that is in some particular Cases wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights Profits Securities or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor Vobis posteris vestris Regibus c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66. This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5 c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where upon pain of a Premunire all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome But this is in certain Cases only see Vindic. p. 81. Cases indeed Ecclesiastical but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects which all Ecclesiastical matters I hope neither are nor are pretended to be viz. these Cases Popes refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question Again The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent whereby saith the Statute the Kings Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away and so the Realm destitute as well of Council as of Substance surely these are Temporal Considerations and so the Crown of England which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope c. the Regality that is in those Temporal things above named In these Cases Bulls c from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited as infringing the Civil Rights And to this Statute in such case it is said there the Lords Spiritual gave their consent But meanwhile making Protestations saith the Statute that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church And Richard the Second notwithstanding this Act was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it 2. Rich. 2.7 Again you may find perhaps Appeals Bulls c prohibited in general without the Kings content first obtained thereto But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them but only out of an intention to examine them first whether any thing were contained in them
a 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
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
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
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
literis excitaverat ipse Sanctus adversus Regem pro Ecclesia starent redarguerent comminarentur oâ—â—entantes quae in arcu sagittae paratae erant ad feriendum censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes ut potius adversus eundem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent telis oppeterent jurgiorum in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum Bar. An. A. C. 1167. Margin A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton de tribus Thomis in Thoma Cant. * Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tecte postulavit quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia aperte u surpavit nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurp'd viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England and again * Quid hoc est aliud nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papâ— what was this but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects So that according to this Author Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Popes Encroachments viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edv. 3. Stat de provisoribus 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1.2 4. stat 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6.8 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our * Cokes Inst l. 4. c. â—4 Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19. concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm * 1. Eliz. c. 1. and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all forreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Jurisdictions of the same Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiasticall Where 1st As to the title of Head of the Church we find that * Twisd c. 5. par 2. King Edgar was reputed and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum the Vicar of Christ and by his Laws and Canons assur'd the world he did not in vain assume those titles * Chap. 5. par 14. c. 6. par 8. That our Forefathers stil'd their Kings Patrons Defenders Governours Tutors and Protectors of the Church And the Kings Regimen of the Church is thus exprest by King Edward the Confessor in his laws Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriosis defendat Leg. Edv. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a priviledge delegated by him what he claim'd as a right deriv'd immediately from God * Vobis posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae justa sunt To you saith that Pope to the Confessor and your Successours the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power They challenge from St. Peter himself to be * 1 Pet. II. 13. Supreme and from St. Paul that * Rom. XIII 1. every Soul should be subject to them And the extent of their Regal power may be learn'd from St. Austin who teaches us * In hoc Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in Regno suo bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem Aug. contra Crescâ—n l. 3. c. 51. that the Divine right of Kings as such authorized them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion In pursuance of which 2ly As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy namely the Keyes of Order and Jurisdiction so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices is evident to any one who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant A Collection of the Laws made by Ina Alfred Edward Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Ethelred Canutus and others we have publish'd by Mr. Lambard in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith Baptism Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops Priests Marriage Observance of Lent appointing of Festivals and the like And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Autority which our Editor cannot justly decline I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Publish'd in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford in the Name of the Alumni of that Society This Author speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical makes this Inference from them * Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur quod ex iis constat etiam illis temporibus Reges Saxonicos Alfredum Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos quam in Laicos neque Ecclesiam quae in ipsorum ditione esset esse quid peregrinum vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam quod Anselmus Beckettus aliique deinceps insecuti acriter eontenderunt Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par 12. These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation because from them it is evident that the
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
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
need to meddle with any other since We never did own the Autority of any but what were so establish'd I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph §. 25.26 because what is said there is unsaid in the 26th But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark He supposes that Gardiner retracted his acknowledgment of a Regal Supremacy for this reason because by sad experience he saw it much enlarg'd beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintain'd it just § 46 But else-where this same Author will suppose that Gardiner was ensnar'd in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's and this Sense which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure § 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarg'd In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been perform'd in this Chapter We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanc'd then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme promis'd to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent and requested that the Old ones might be Reform'd The rest of his Discourse is only flourish which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been compriz'd in fewer Words and this would have heightned our Esteem of the Author tho' it might have deprest the price of the Pamphlet A Reply to his 3d Chapter § 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament Repeal'd and not Repeal'd make no difference with him All the Expressions which seem to extend the Supremacy are invidiously rak'd together and those which limit it craftily supprest The Statutes are put upon the rack and because the Text doth not speak plain enough our Author has added his Gloss He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction but restor'd the Old nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy who certainly did not delude the King with the Complement of an empty Title The extent of this Jurisdiction annex'd to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction here ascrib'd to the Prince might have been spar'd if he had attended to an easie distinction frequently met with in our Writers They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience or External that which is practis'd in exterior Courts That proceeds by Spiritual Censures this by force and corporal Punishments That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme and from him deriv'd to Ecclesiastic Governours Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annex'd to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum tho' what is urg'd thence needs no Reply that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church § 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but the Clergy too Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign Every Government has a right to dispence with it's own Acts and nothing farther is challeng'd in that Statute No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom but from the Legislative power of the Realm and the same power which gave them life might dispense with them This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesom Acts made in King Henry's Reign but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince but his Ancient Right for some Years indeed usurp'd by the Pope but now vindicated This is the true import of that Statute which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope to whom it never rightly belonged but not from the Clergy it being expresly provided in the Act that all Licenses be granted by the Arch-Bishop or 2 Spiritual Persons In case of the Arch-Bishop's refusal the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis it ought the rather to be excus'd since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observ'd that that Thesis is contrary to it self His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law this Act I am sure whence he infers it positively asserts the King to be Supreme § 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirm'd by the Patriarch is taken away The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome otherwise cal'd the Pope to or for the office of Bishop or Arch-Bishop of this Realm But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as ow no Subjection to any Patriarch and therefore have no necessity of being confirm'd by him Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity for it supposes none The King's Presentation to a Bishoprick against which he is so warm was no new Usurpation but an ancient Right had he liv'd some Centuries before the Reformation he would have had this Grievance to complain of The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated but for the Reader 's mortification The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv p. 65. as in it The said Arch-Bishop when no Arch-Bishop had been mention'd before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period
'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
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
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
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
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
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
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
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
other general words whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfections or disability that could be objected against the same So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness i. e. in Ecclesiasticals which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops See it before §. 70 it is evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against the said Consecrations c. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church in these Church matters And the Answer seems in effect this That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church § 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject this reformed Clergy being such persons as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince and therefore it is not strange if the Prince acted no more against but by them and began now a-new to use the Synod more than the Senate in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs CHAP. XIII The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy § 196 ONly before I conclude this Discourse let me shew you The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it after all the rest that as it hath been affirmed here that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines tho they contend that our Princes did not so Yet as if they doubted much whether they should be able to make this good do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves that a Prince when there is a necessity that requires it of which necessity the Prince is to judge or in cases extraordinary of which cases the Prince is to judge may lawfully reform Religion both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline contrary to the major part of the Clergy these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Superiors Nay also in the beginning of this work such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent because if they should once maintain That no Reformation is valid which is done against the major part of the National Clergy by the same reason they must assert that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy or of the Church or Council to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience § 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion is that of Dr. Field He The Opinion of Dr. Field after these specious Concessions We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on according to former resolutions Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion but in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils in matters not formerly determined to the judgment of his Clergy i. e. the major part thereof Yet after such specious Concessions I say he proceedeth as it were to protect the Reformation on this manner Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service there is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them But because they may fail they i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and not onely single persons but Synods of them else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods and a minor by the major part and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these to other Judges either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over Gods people and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily Thus Dr. Field § 198 Who not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi cui deplorata res est here seems to six the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice to others or at least cannot fail so soon as the whole body of the Clergy may what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they As one that hath a charge over Gods people and is to see that they worship God aright as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he or as if he could judge what was
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
Communion extend their Supremacy as far as the Reformed And here it may not be improper to instance in that right which the Kings of Spain enjoy in Sicily which seems to extend even to those Spiritual powers which our Author calls the chiefest And this I find usher'd in by a Roman-Catholick Writer with an assertion quite * Hist of Eccl. Rev by a Learned Priest in France p. 116. opposite to that which is laid down in this Epistle It even surpasses saith he that which Henry the Eighth of England boldly took when he separated from the Church of Rome The King of Spain as King of Sicily pretends to be Legate à latere and born Legate of the H. See so that he and his Viceroys in his absence have the same power over the Sicilians as to the Spiritual that a Legate à latere could have And therefore they who execute that Jurisdiction of Sicily for the King of Spain have power to absolve punish and excommunicate all sorts of persons whether Laicks or Ecclesiasticks Monks Priests Abbots Bishops and even Cardinals themselves that reside in the Kingdom They acknowledge not the Popes Autority being Sovereign Monarchs as to the Spiritual They confess that the Pope hath heretofore given them that priviledge So that his Holiness it seemes thought even those chiefest Powers of the Church alienable but at the same time they pretend that it is not in his power to recall it and so they acknowledge not the Pope for head to whose Tribunal no Appeal can be made because their King has no Superiour as to the Spiritual Moreover this right of superiority is not consider'd as delegate but proper and the King of Sicily or they who hold Jurisdiction in his place and who are Lay-men take the title of Beatissimo Santissimo Padre attributing to themselves in effect in respect of Sicily what the Pope takes to himself in regard of the whole Church and they preside in Provincial Councils As for the title of Head of the Church which taken by the Reformers so much offends our Discourser this Critical Historian farther observes It was matter of great astonishment that in our age Queen Elizabeth took the title of Head of the Church of England But seeing in the Kingdom of Sicily the Female succeeds as well as in England a Princess may take the title of Head of the Church of Sicily and of Beatissimo Santissimo Padre Nay it hath happen'd so already in the time of Jean of Arragon Castile the mother of Charles the 5th So that this Critick concludes that it may be said there are two Popes and two sacred Colledges in the Church to wit the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Sicily to whom also may be added the Pope of England What Jurisdiction Spiritual the King of France challenges will best be learnt from the Liberties of the Gallican Church publish'd by the learned Pitthaeus and to be found in his Works Two of them which seem to come home to our purpose are these * Le Rois tres Chrestiens ont de tout temps selon les occurrences necessitez de leur pays assemblè ou fait assembler Synodes ou Conciles Provinciaux Nationaux esquels entre autres choses importantes à conservation de leur estat se sont aussi traitez les affaires concernans l'ordre discipline Ecclesiastique de leurs pays dont ils ont faict faire Reigles Chapitres Loix Ordonnances Pragmatiques Sanctions sous leur Nom autoritè s' en lisent encor aujourd huy phisieurs ès recueils des Decrets receus par l'Eglise Universelle aucunes approuvees par Conciciles generaux The most Christian King hath had power at all times according to the occurrences and necessity's of his own affairs to assemble or cause to be assembled Synods or Councils Provincial and National and therein to treat not only of such things as tend to the preservation of his State but also of affairs which concern the Order and Discipline of the Church in his own Dominions and therein to make Rules Chapters Laws Ordinances and Pragmatick sanctions in his own Name and by his own Autority Many of which have been received among the Decrees of the Catholique Church and some of them approv'd by General Councils * Le Pape n'envoy point en France Legates à latere avec faculte ' de reformer juger conferer dispenser telles autres qui ont accoustumè d'estre specifiees par les Bulles de leur pouvoir si non a la ' postulation du Roy tres-Christien ou de son consentement le Legat n' use de ses facultez qu' apres avoir baillè promesse au Roy par escrit sous son sein jurè par ses Sainctes Ordres de n' user desdites facultez e's Royaume pays terres Seigneuries de sa sujettion si non tant si longuement qu'il plaira au Roy que si tost que le dit Legat sera adverty de sa volonte ' au contraire il s' en desistera cessera Aussi qu' il n' usera des dites facultez si non pour le regard de celles dont il aura le consentement du Roy conformement à iceluy sans entreprendre ny faire chose au Saincts decrets Conciles generaux Franchises Libertez Privileges de L'Eglise Gallicane des Universitez estatez publiques de ce Royaume Et à cette fin se presentent les facultez de tels Legats a la Cour de Parlement ou elles sont veus examinees verifiees publiees registrees sous telles modifications que la Cour voit estre à fair pour le bien du Royaume suivant lesqnelles modifications se jugent tous les process differents qui surviennent pour raison de ce non autrement The Pope cannot send a Legat à latere into France with power to reform judge collate or dispence or do such other things which use to be specified in the Bull of his Legation except it be upon the desire or with the approbation of the most Christian King Neither can the said Legate execute his Office untill he hath promised the King in writing under his seal and sworn by his holy Orders that he will not use the said Legantine power in his Kingdom Countreys Lands and Dominions any longer then it shall please the King and that so soon as he is admonish'd of the Kings pleasure to the contrary he will cease and forbear and that whilst he doth use it it shall be no otherwise exercis'd then according to the consent of and in conformity to the King without attemping any thing to the prejudice of the Decrees of General Councils the Franchises Liberties and Priviledges of the Gallican Church and the Universities and publique Estates of the Realm And to this end they shall present the Letters of their Legation to
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
the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and Scholar of the Church and he earnestly claims a Supreme power and confesseth an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual Matters to bind them upon Temporal Punishments to Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's Determinations and Decrees But here he either willingly misrepresents or ignorantly mistakes our Principles For the Prince claims a supreme power over all persons to bind them by temporal Punishments to the Obedience not of the Churches but of Christs Laws or of the former no farther then they are agreeable with the latter But saith He if the Prince meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees Orthodox and right this power is in effect claim'd to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees whilst he praetends an Obligation both of himself and His Subjects to the Churches But what if the Prince judge such Decrees neither Orthodox nor right Must he here give them the Autority of Civil Sanctions This is to establish Iniquity by a Law and a power is claim'd in effect to bind all persons to the Decrees of the Clergy whilst as has been said He praetends an Obligation of Himself Subjects to the Laws of Christ But he goes on and tells us That all Texts of the New-Testament do ordain Obedience of Church-men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned no less then to others From which I suppose he would infer an exemption from Obeying the Prince in Spiritualibus But supposing that all Texts do aequally ordain Obedience to Princes Pagan and Christian yet the Obedience to a Christian Prince will be of greater latitude since because he professes the true Religion his Commands in Spirituals not contradicting our Saviours will exact our Compliance Obedience in licitis is all the Subject ow's to a Prince either Christian on Infidel but the Christian Prince will oftner challenge my Obedience because he more rarely transgresseth the bounds of licita If as he adds all Princes are oblig'd with the Sword which God hath given them to protect and defend his true Religion and Service in their Dominions whensoever it offers it self to them Since many Religions offer themselves it becomes the Prince to take Care which is the true and not to take whatever is offer'd which would be utterly destructive of our Authors Principles As for the Acts of Ancient Councils obliging even without the Emperours consent We own their Obligation over their proper Subjects so far as they were agreeable with the Laws of Christ and his Apostles and urge the Autority of Emperours no farther then as adding their Civil power to the Spiritual Power of the Church And here we challenge no other Power to our Princes then was exercis'd by Christian Emperours that is to call Synods and to have a liberty of confirming or not confirming their Decrees by Civil Sanctions As for what he cites out of our Writers all amounts to no more then this that there are some Offices peculiar to the Church Which neither do we deny nor did our Princes ever invade these Functions But because from hence He would insinuate that the Prince has no power at all in Causes Ecclesiastical c in his Citations from these Writers comes up to that Character which the * Book of Educ Ox. 1677 p 86. Book of Education gives us of the SLY the CLOSE and the RESERV'D who take notice of so much at serves to their own designs and misinterpret and detort what You say even contrary to Your intention I shall as briefly as may be shew that their Concessions are far from giving any Countenance to his Cause Bishop Andrews doth indeed say as all other of our Church Potestatis mere Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae Conciones i. e. dubia legis explicandi munus claves Sacramenta omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur But then there are other Ecclesiastical powers which he challenges to the Prince viz. a In iis quae Exterioris politiae sunt ut praecipiat suo sibi jure vindicat Tort. p. 380. To have Supreme Command in the exteriour Polity of the Church b Custos est non modo secunadae Tabulae sed primae p. 381. To be keeper of both Tables c Quodcunque in rebus Religionis Reges Israel fecerunt id ut Ei faciendi jus sit ac potestas Ib. To exercise all that Power which the good Kings of Israel did d Leges Autoritate Regia ferendi ne blasphemetur Deus ut jejunio placetur Deus ut festo honoretur Ib. To make Ecclesiastical Laws To e Delegandi qui de lege sic lata judicent Ib. delegate Persons to judge in causes Ecclesiastical To f Siqui in Leges ita latas committant etsi Religionis causa sit in eos Autoritate Regia animadvertendi Ib. punish the breach of those Spiritual Laws To g Non ut totus ab lieno ore pendeat ipse à se nihil dijudicer Ib. learn the will of God not only from the Mouth of the Clergy but also from the Scripture To h Omnibus omnium ordinum jus dicendi Ib. have autority over all Persons To i Abiathar ipsum si ita meruit Pontificatu abdicandi 382. eject even the High Priest if he deserve it To k Excelsa diruendi i. e. peregrinum cultum abolendi Ib. pull down High-places l Sive in Idololatriam abeat Vitulus aureus sive in Superstitionem Serpens aeneus utrumque comminuendi Ib. and to Reform the Church from Idolatry and Superstition These He claims to appertain to the Prince m Haec Primatus a pud nos jura sunt ex jure divino Ib. Jure Divino The next Author is Dr. Carlion He amongst other rights of the Church reckons Institution and Collation of Benefices which this Writer marks with Italian Characters and makes much Use of But this Apostolical Institution and Collation by the Bishop alluded to doth also involve in it Ordination even as the Ordination which is observ'd by himself n Pag. 13. from the Bishop signified also Institution in the charge and cure But the Collation challeng'd by our Princes is of another Nature and signifies no more then the Nominating a Person to be Ordain'd to such an Office or presenting a Person already Ordained to such a Benefice And the right of Investitures which is the same with such a Collation is by this Bishop o Jurisd â—eg Ep. p. 137. asserted to Emperours This being clear'd which was by him on purpose perplex'd If we take the extent of the Regal power from this Bishop He tells p Id. p. 10. us That Sovereign's as Nursing Fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all Inferiour Ministers perform their faithfull duties in their several places and if they be found faulty to punish them His next Author is Mr. Thorndike Who is as large
detect them Should I give a complete Catalogue of 'em I should out-swell the bulk of Church-Government but I consider that every one who desires to know this Author may not be willing to be charg'd with a Volume I shall therefore confine my self to such only as are worthy of this Writer and beyond the aim of a common Undertaker A Reply to Chapter the 2d. IT Might inquir'd why this Author dates the Reformation from the days of King Henry since the Principal Actors in those times were such as the Smithfield-Protestants had no reason to think Reformers I might therefore wave the three a Chapters 2d. 3d. 7th Chapters that concern that Reign were I not by the justness of an Answer oblig'd to my Author's method But before I enter upon this subject I would acquaint the Reader once for all that the glory of these Fables is owing to the Pen of the inimitable Sanders Who was so great a Master of Invention that no Ingenuous Author would have condescended to transcribe him He does not however pay such an implicit deference to the establish'd Character of that great Original but that he dares refine upon those Strokes which seem'd incapable of improvement That he may give us a tast of what we are to expect in the body of his History he entertains us in the first entrance into it with a false and groundless aspersion of the Marriage of King Henry with Ann Bullen Sanders for the deeper blackening of Q Elizabeth tell 's his Readers that King Henry before his Marriage with Ann Bullen had known her Sister and her Mother and that she was his Natural Daughter This he affirms with an air of Autority without offer of proof as became one who addrest himself to a Spanish Reader but our Author who could not expect so great a resignation of Reason presents this Calumny in a better dress and suborns Parliaments and Popes to support it The King § 17 he saith was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7 c. never after repeal'd plainly declar'd her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown and of which those words in the Dispensation procur'd from Clement the seventh Etiamsi illa tibi alias secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis aut primo affinitatis gradu etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit do give some suspicion If ever Sanders's Title was endanger'd this Period shakes it for certainly never was Assurance so perfect in Idea as that of this Author Who in a knowing age Protestant Country and Learned University to prove that the King was conscious of some Impediments very calmly refers us to a a Albeit those Acts concerning the ratification of the King's Marriage with the Lady Ann Bolen were then made as it was thent hought by Your Majesty Nobles and Commons upon a pure perfect and clear foundation thinking the said Marriage then had between Your Highness and the said Lady Ann in their Consciences to have been pure sincere perfect and good and so was reputed accepted and taken in the Realm till now of late that God hath caus'd to be brought to light certain just true and lawful Impediments unknown at the making of the said Acts Albeit that Your Majesty not knowing of any lawful Impediments entred into the bonds of the said unlawful Marriage c. 28. Hen. 8. c. 7. Pultous Coll. Lond. 1632. Statute which in express words saith that the King knew not of any Impediments The Act doth as any one may see mention some Impediments for which the Marriage is declar'd unlawful but withal plainly saith they were unknown to the King and then how could they be such as this Author from this Statute would have us understand This Act of illegitimating Elizabeth he saith was never after repeal'd From which I gather that our Author is much-what of the same Opinion as to Q. Elizabeth's Legitimacy with his Brother the Author of the late Test tho' it seems he is better bred than to use his expression But I cannot think that one whose Circumstances have made it so much his concern to consult the Statute-book could be ignorant of the Repeal of this Act and therefore am of Opinion that this Clause was inserted only that he might throughout observe a Decorum and maintain his Character Not to mention the 35 of Hen. 8. c. 1. which provides for the Succession of the L. Elizabeth I desire the Reader to cast his Eye on the Margin a There is nothing which We Your Subjects for our parties can may or ought more firmly entiredly and assuredly in the purity of our hearts think or with our mouths declare and confess to be true then that Your Majesty our Sovereign Lady is and in very deed and of most meer right ought to be by the Law of God and the Laws and Statutes of this Realm our most rightful and lawful Sovereign Liege Lady and Queen and that Your Majesty is rightly lineally and lawfully descended and come of the blood Royal of this Kingdom in and to whose Princely person without all doubt ambiguity scruples or question the Imperial Estate of this Realm is invested For which Causes we Your said Subjects as thereunto constrain'd by the Laws of God and Man can no less do then humbly beseech Your Majestie that it be enacted c. And that all Sentences Judgments and Decrees had made declared set forth published and promulged and also as much of every Clause Article Branch Matter or thing contained or exprest in any Act or Acts of Parliament as be in any thing repugnant contrary or derogatorie to this our said Declaration c. shall be utterly frustrate void and of none effect and also shall and may be cancel'd defac'd and put in perpetual Oblivion c. 1st Eliz. c. 3. where he will find the Act of Illegitimacy repeal'd in Expressions so full and vigorous that it is hard to imagine what could tempt our Author to so extravagant an Assertion but the ambition of exceeding all Examples But the citing of an Act which when consulted proves the contradictory of that for which it was refer'd to and the denying the Repeal of a Statute which is abrogated in as plain words as possible do not furnish Matter enough for a Parenthesis with this Author To close it therefore a passage is cited from a Dispensation which he has procur'd from Clement the seventh Since he urges us with this Dispensation it is to be hop'd that he esteems it genuine If so we have met with a Bull wherein the Marriage betwixt King Henry and Katherine is declar'd null and invalid But he who in this Paragraph cites a passage from Pope Clement's Bull of Divorce will in the next Paragraph but one § 19 shew us that the Pope was not singular in his Judgment when he refus'd to grant such a Bull. It is indeed certain
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