in the present business but impose that Form upon the people which by the learned religious Clergy-men whom the K. appointed thereunto was agreed upon and made it penal unto such as either should deprave the same or neglect to use it And thus doth Poulton no mean Lawyer understand the Statute who therfore gives no other title to it in his Abridgement published in the year 1612 than this The penalty for not using uniformity of Service and Ministration of the Sacrament So then the making of one uniform Order of celebrating divine Service was the work of the Clergy the making of the Penalties was the work of the Parliament Where let me tell you by the way that the men who were employed in this weighty business whose names deserve to be continued in perpetual memory were Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury George Day Bishop of Chichester Thomas Goodrich B. of Ely and Lord Chancellour Iohn Ship Bishop of Hereford Henry Holbâ—rt Bishop of Lincoln Nicholâ—s Ridley Bishop of Rochester translated afterwards to London Thomas Thirleby B. of Westminster Doctor May Dâ—an of S. Pauls Dr Taylor then Dean afterwards Bp of Lincoln Dr Haines Dean of Exeter Dr Robertson afterwards Dean of Durham Dr Redman Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge and Dr Coke then Alâ—ner to the King afterward Dean of Westminster and at last Bp of Ely men famous in their generations and the honour of the Age they lived in And so much for the first Liturgy of King Edwards Reign in which you see how little was done by authority or power of Parliament so little that if it had been less it had been just nothing But some exceptions being taken against the Liturgy by some of the preciser sort at home and by Calvin abroad the book was brought under a review and though it had been framed at first if the Parliament which said so erred not by the â—yd of the Holy Ghost himself yet to comply with the curiosity of the Ministers and mistakes of the people rather then for any other weighty cause As the Statute 5 and 6 Ed. 6. cap. 1. it was thought expedient by the King with the assent of the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled that the said Order of Common Service should be faithfully and godly perused explained and made fully perfect Perused and explained by whom Why questionless by those who made it or else by those if they were not the same men who were appointed by the King to draw up and compose a Form of Ordination for the use of the Church And this Assent of theirs for it was no more was the onely part that was ever acted by the Parliament in matter of this present nature save that a Statute passed in the former Parliament 3 and 4 Ed. 6. c. 12. unto this effect that such form and manner of making and consecrating Archb. Bi-shops Priests Deacons and other Ministers of the Church which before I spake of as by sixe Prelates and sixe other men of this Realm learned in Gods lawes by the King to be appointed and assigned shall be devised to that purpose and set forth under the great Seal shall be lawfully used and exercised and none other Where note that the King onely was to nominate and appoint the men the Bishops and other learned men were to make the Book and that the Parliament in a blinde obedience or at the least upon a charitable confidence in the integrity of the men so nominated did confirm that Book before any of their Members had ever seen it though afterwards indeed in the following Parliament this Book together with the book of Common-prayer so printed and explained obtained a more formal confirmation as to the use thereof throughout the Kingdom but in no other respect for which see the Statute 5 and 6 Ed. 6. c. 1. As for the time of Qu. Elizabeth when the Common prayer book now in use being the same almost with the last of King Edward was to be brought again into the Church from whence it was cast out in Queen Maries Reign it was commited to the care of some learned men that is to say to M Whitehead once Chaplain to Queen Anne Bullen Dr Parker after Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Grindal after bishop of London Dr Cox after Bishop of Ely Dr Pilkington after Bishop of Durham Dr May Dean of Saint Pauls Dr Bill Provost of Eaton after Dean of Westminster and Sr Tho Smith By whom being altered in some few passages which the Statute points to 1 Eliz. c. 21. it was presented to the Parliament and by the Parliament received and established without more 〈…〉 troubling any Committee of both or â—ither Houses to consider of it for ought appears in their Records All that the Parliament did in it being to put it into the condition in which it stood before in King Edwards Reign partly by repealing the Repeal of King Edw. Statuteâ— made in the first of Q. Mary c. 2. and partly by the adding of some farther penalties on such as did deprave the book or neglect to use it or wilfully did absent themselves from their Parish-Churches And for the Alterations made in King Iames his time bâ—ing small in the Rubrick onely and for the additions of the Thanksgivings at the end of the Letany the Prayer for the Queen and the Royal Issue and the Doctrine of the Sacraments at the end of the Catechisiâ—e which were not in the book before they were never referred unto the Parliament but were done onely by aâ—thority of the Kings Commission and stand in force by vertue onely of His Proclamation which you may finde before the book the charge of buying the said book so explained and altered being laid upon the several and respective Parishes by no other Authority than that of the eightieth Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603. The like may also be affirmed of the Foâ—mes of prayer for the Inauguration day of our Kings and Queens the Prayer-books for the fifth of November and the fifth of August and those which have been used in all publike Fasts All which without the help of Paâ—liaments have been composed by the Bishops and imposed by the King Now unto this discourse of the Forms of Worship I shall subjoyn a word or two of the times of Worship that is to say the Holy dayes observed in the Church of England and so observed that they do owe that observation chiefly to the Church â— power For whereas it was found in the former times that the number â—f the holy dayes was grown so great that they became a burthen to the common people and a great hinderance to the thrist and manufactures of the Kingdom there was a Canon made in the Convocation An. 1536. for cutting off of many superstitious and supeâ—fluous Holy dayes and the reducing them into the number in which they now stâ—nd save that St Gâ—orge's day and Maâ—y Magdalens day and all the Festivals of the blessed Virgin
and other Opponents whatsoever which after were approved and published by the Kings Authority They were in number 41. and were published by this following Title that is to say Articuli dâ— quibus in Synoâ— London Anno 1552. 〈…〉 Religion is firmandum inter Episcopos alios Eruditis 〈◊〉 Convenerat Regia authoritate in lucem Editi And it is worth our observation that though the Parliament was held at the very time and that the Parliament passed several Acts which concerned Church-matters as viz. An Act for Vniformity of Divine Service and for the confirmation of the book of Ordination 5 and 6 Edw. 6. c. 1. All Act declaring which dayes onely shall be kept for Holy dayes and which for Fasting dayes C. 3. against striking or drawing weapon either in the Church or Church-yard C. 4. And finally another Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests and Ministers C. 12. Yet neither in this Parliament nor in that which followed is there so much as the least syllable which reflecteth this way or medleth any thing at all with the book of Articles Where by the way if you behold the lawfulnesse of Priests Marriages as a matter Doctrinal or think we owe that point of Doctrine the indulgence granted to the Clergy in it to the care and goodness of the Parl. you may please to know that the point had been before determined in the Convocation stands determined by and for the Clergy in the 31 of those Articles and that the Parliament looked on it as a point of Doctrine but as it was a matter practical conducing to the benefit and improvement of the Common-wealth Or if it did yet was the statute built on no other ground-work than the Resolution of the Clergy the Marriage of Priests being before determined to be most lawfull I use the very words of the Act it self and according to the Word of God by the learned Clergy of this Realm in their Convocations as well by the common assent as by subscriptions of their hands 5 6. Edw. 6. chap. 12. And for the time of Queen Elizabeth it is most manifest that they had no other body of Doctrine in the first part of her Reign then onely the said Articles of K. Edwards book and that which was delivered in the book of Homilies of the said Kings time in which the Parliament had as little to do as you have seen they had in the book of Articles But in the Convocation of the year 1562. being the fifth of the Qu. Reign the Bishops and Clergy taking into consideration the said book of Articles and altering what they thought most fitting to make it more conducible to the use of the Church and the edification of the people presented it unto the Queen who caused it to be published with this Name and Title viz. Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London Anno 1562 for the avoiding of diversity of Opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion put forth by the Queens authority Of any thing done or pretended to be done by the power of the Parliament either in the way of approbation or of confirmation â—ot one word occurs either in any of the printed books or the publique Registers At last indeed in the 13th of the said Queens Reign which was 8 years full after the passing of those Articles comes out a statute for the redressing of disorders in the Ministers of holy Church In which it was enacted That all such as were ordained Priests or Ministers of Gods Word and Sacraments after any other form then that appointed to be used in the Church of England all such as were to be ordained or permitted to preach or to be instituted into any Benefiâ—e with â—ure of soules should publikely subscribe to the said Articles and testifie their assent unto them Which shews if you observe it well that though the Parliament did well allow of and approve the said book of Articles yet the said book owes neither confirmation nor authority to the Act of Parliament So that the wonder is the greater that that most insolent scoff which is put upon us by the Church of Rome in calling our Religion by the name Parliamentaria Religiâ— should pass so long without controle unlesse perhaps it was in reference to our Formes of Worship of which I am to speak in the next place But first we must make answer unto some Objections which are made against us both from Law and Practice For Practice first it is alleadged by some out of Bishop Iewel in his Answer to the cavil of Dr Harding to be no strange matter to see Ecclesiastical Causes debated in Parliament and that it is apparent by the Lawes of King Inas King Alfred King Edward c. That our godly fore-fathers the Princes and Peers of this Realm never vouchsafed to treat of matters touching the common State before all controversies of Religion and Causes Ecclesiastical had been concluded Def. of the Apol. part 6 chap. 2. sect. 1. But the answer unto this is eaâ—â—e For first if our Religion may be called Parliamentarian because it hath received confirmation and debate in Parliament then the Religion of our Fore-fathers even Papistry it self concerning which so many Acts of Parliament were made in K. Hen. 8. and Q. Maries time must be called Parliamentarian also And secondly it is most certain that in the Parliaments or Common-Councels call them which you will both of King Inas time and the rest of the Saxon Kings which B. Iewel speaks of not onely Bishops Abbots and the higher part of the Clergy but the whole Body of the Clergy generally had their votes and suffrages either in person or by proxie Concerning which take this for the leading Case That in the Parliament or Common-councel in K. Ethelberts time who first of all the Saxon Kings received the Gospel the Clergy were convened in as full a manner as the Lay-Subjects of that Prince Convoâ—ati communi Concilio tam Cleri quam Populi saith Sr H. Spelman in his Collection of the Councels Ann. 605. p. 118. And for the Parliament of King Ina which leades the way in Bishop Iewel it was saith the same Sr H. Spelman p. 630. Communi Concilium Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum populorumque totius Regni Where doubtless Sapientes and Seniores and you know what Seniores signifieth in the Ecclesiastical notion must be some body else then those which after are expressed by the name of Populi which shews the falshood and absurdity of the collection made by Mr Pryn in the Epistle to his book against Dr Cousins viz. That the Parliament as it is now constituted hath an ancient genuine just and lawful Prerogative to establish true Religion in our Church and to abolish and suppress all false new and counterfeit Doctrines
them which being agreed on by the Clâ—rgie and by them presented to the King humbly requiring him to give his royal asâ—ent unto them according to the Statute made in the 25 of K. H. 8 and by his Majesties Prerogative and Supream authority in Ecclesiastical causes to ratifie and confirm the same his Majesty was graciously pleased to confirm and ratifie them by his Letters Patents for himself his heirs and lawfull successours straightly commanding and requiring all his loving Subjâ—cts diligâ—ntly to observe execute and keep the same in all points wherein they do or may concern all or any of them No running to the Parliament to confirm these Canons nor any question made till this present by temperate and knowing men that there wanted any act for their confirmation which the law could give them 7. An Answer to the main Objections of either Party BUt against this all which hath been said before it will be objected â—hat being the Bishops of the Church are fully and wholly Parliamentarian and have no more authority and jurisdiction nisi a Parliamentis derivatum but that which is conâ—erred upon them by the power of Parliamâ—nts as both Sanders and Schultingius do expresly say whatsoever they shall do oâ— conclude upon either in Convocation or in more private conferences may be called Pâ—rliâ—menâ—arian also And this last calumny they build on the sevâ—ral Stâ—tutes 24. H 8. c. 12. touching the manner of eâ—ecting and consecrating Arch-Bishops and Bishops that of the 1 E. 6. c. 2. appointing how they shall be chosen and what seaâ—s they shaâ—l uâ—e thâ—se of 3 and 4 Ed. 6. c. 12. 5 6. E. 6. â—or authorizing of the book of Ordination But châ—â—fly that of the 8 Eliz. c. 1. for making good all Acts since 1 Eliz. in coâ—sâ—crating any Arch Bishop or Bishop within this Reaâ—m â—o give a general answer to each several cavil you may please to know that the Bishops as they now stand in the Church of England derive their calling together with their authority and power in Spiritual matâ—ers from no other hands then those of Christ and his Apostles their Temporal honors and posâ—â—â—â—ions from the bounty and affection onely of our Kings Princes their Ecclesiastical juriâ—diction in caâ—ses Matrimonial Testamentary and the like for which no action lieth at the common Law from continuall usage and prescription and ratified and continued unto them in the Magna Charta of this Realm and 〈◊〉 more unto the Parliament than all sort of subjects do besidâ—s whose fortunes and estates have been occasionally and collaterally confirmed in Parliament And as for the particular Statutes which are touched upon that of the 24 H. 8. doâ—h only constitute and ordain a way by which they might be chose and conâ—ecrated without recourse to Rome for a conâ—irmation which formerly had put the Prâ—lates to great charge and trouble but for the form and maâ—ner of their consecration the Staâ—uâ—e leaves it to those Rites and Ceremonies wherewith before it was perfoâ—â—ed and therefore Sanders doth not stick to affirm that all the Bishops which were made in King Henries days were lawfully and Canonically ordained and consâ—crated the Bishops of that time not onâ—ly being acknowledged in Queen Maries days for lawfull and Canonical Bishops but called on to assist at the consecration of such other Bishops Carâ—inal Pool himself for one as were promoted in her Reign whereof see Masons book de Minist. Ang. l. c. 〈◊〉 Next for the Statute 1 E. 6. cap. 2. besides that it is satisfied in part by the former Answer as it relates to their Canonâ—cal Consecrations it was repeaeld to Tâ—rminis in the first of Queene Maries Reigne and never stood in â—orce nor practise to this day That of the authorizing of the booke of Ordination in two severall Parliaments of that King the one a parte ante and the other a parte post as before I told you mâ—ght indeed seeme somewhat to the purpose if any thing were wanâ—ing in it which had beene used iâ— the formula's of the Primitive times or if the book had beâ—n composed in Paâ—liament or by Parliament men or otherwise received more authority from them then that iâ— might be lawfully used and exercâ—sed thâ—oughouâ— the Kingdome But it is plâ—in that none of these things were oâ—jected 〈◊〉 Queen Maries dayâ—â— when the Pâ—pists stood mâ—st upon their points 〈◊〉 Ordinal being not â—aâ—led in because it had too much of the Parliament buâ— becauâ—e it had too lâ—ttle of the Pope and reâ—shâ—d too strongly of the Pâ—imitive piety And for the Sâ—atute oâ— 8 of Qu. Elizâ—beth which is chiefly stood on all that was done therein was no more then thiâ— and on this occasion A question had been mâ—de by captiouâ— and unquiet men and amongst the rest by Doctor Bâ—nner sometimes Bishop of London whether the Bishops of those times were lawâ—ully ordained or not the reason of the doubâ— being this which I marvell Mason did not sâ—e because the â—ook of Ordination which was annulled and abâ—ogated in the 〈◊〉 of Queen Mary had not been yet restored and revived by any legal Act oâ— Qu. Elizabeths time which Cauâ—e being brought before the Pâ—rliamenâ— in the 8 year of her Reign thâ—Pâ—rliâ—ment took notice first that their not restoring of thaâ— booke 〈…〉 foâ—mer power in terâ—s significant and expresse was but 〈…〉 and then declare that by the Stature 5 and 6 E. 6. it had been 〈◊〉 to the book of Common-prâ—yer and Administration of the Sacramâ—nss as a member of it at least as an Appâ—â—dant to it and therefore by the Staâ—uâ—e 1 Eliz. c. â— was restored again together with the sâ—id boo◠〈◊〉 Common-prayer intentionally at the least if not in Terminis But 〈…〉 words in the said Statute were not clear enough to remove all doubâ—s they therefore did revive now and did accordingly enact That whatsoâ—veâ— had been done by vertue of that Ordination should be good in Law 〈…〉 the total of the Statute and this shews rather in my judgement thaâ— the Bishops of the Queens first times had too little of the Parliament in them then that they were conceived to have had too much And so I come to your laâ—t Objection which concerns the Parliament whose entertaining all occasions to manifest their power in Ecclesiasticall matâ—â—â—â— doth seeme to you to make that groundlesse slâ—nder of the Pâ—pists the more fair and plaâ—sible 'T is true indeed that many Members of both Houses in these latter Times have been â—een very ready to embrace all businesses which are offered to them out of a probable hope of drawing the managery of all Affairs as well Ecclesiastical as Civil into their own hands And some there are who being they cannot hope to have their fancies authorized in a regular way do put them upon such designs as neither can consist with the nature of Parliaments nor the authority of the King nor with the priviledges of the Clergy nor to say truth with