the Civil and Temporal Heads of our Church XXIV He tells us that the Monks could not give away that which they had only for term of Life I know not how this comes to be delivered by our Author at a time when the surrender of so many Charters to the King hath been judged Legal though it was made by men who had no Title to these and who were so far from having a Right to them for Term of Life that they had only the Administration of them in an Annual Magistracy so that our Author had best consider how he advances such Positions lest he doth as much hurt one way as he thinks to do service another In a word our Author hath pleaded the Cause of the Monasteries and hath arraigned the Suppression of them severely tho as he said concerning the burning of Hereticks he would not be thought to plead for it in this place XXV He accuses King Henry for giving Dispensations in matters of Marriage against Ecclesiastical Canons and because he declared all Marriages to be lawful that were not against Gods Law Here if in any thing the perverseness of the Church of Rome appears or rather their design to oblige the World to have oft recourse to them to pay them well and to depend much on them they have prohibited Marriage in many degrees that were not forbid by the Law of God and to ballance this they have suffered Marriages to be contracted in the Degrees forbid by God for the Pope's Power of Dispensing is promoted both ways they have added a new Contrivance of Spiritual Kindred and as the Prohibitions that they have set up were unknown to the Ancient Church so the Degrees that they have declared dispensable were believed by the Ancient Church to be moral and indispensable And yet after all this corruption of Ecclesiastical Discipline they are in great wrath at the Reformers because they thought it was fit to return to the Degrees forbid by the Law of Moses and to cut off these superadded Prohibitions which were inventions to bring grist to that Mill where all things were to be had so men will come up to the Price There follow here a great many Instances in which King Henry exercised his Supremacy which our Author aggravates all he can But the Considerations that were proposed in the first Part seem fully to satisfie all the difficulties that can be thought to arise out of them XXVI He tells us that such of the Privy Council as complied not with the Changes made in King Edward's Days were turned out after some time and names Bishop Tonstal Wriothesly the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel and he adds That the King had but one Parliament continued by Prorogation from Session to Session till at last it ended in the Death of the King. Here are Matters of no great Consequence I confess but these shew how careless our Author was in examining the Story of our Reformation and how easy he was to take up any Reports that might blast it It will not appear a very extraordinary thing to see Privy Counsellors turned out that do not concur with the Designs that prevail Some such things have possibly fallen out in our own Time and Men have no great cause to complain of a severe Administration when this is all the Rigour that is shewed to those who oppose themselves to the Tide But our Author was misinformed in all these Particulars Tonstal went along with all that was done and was contented to protest in Parliament against some Laws but as soon as they were made he gave a ready Obedience to them and continued to be still in the Council during the Duke of Somerset's Ministry Wriothesly was not turned out till after some time but immediately upon King Henry's Death he had past an illegal Patent upon which to prevent a severer Sentence he resign'd his Place but he continued still to be of the Privy Council And the Earl of Arundel continued to be of the Privy Council for many Years and long after fell to be in ill terms with the Duke of Northumberland and upon that an Enquiry was made into his Administration and he was fined 12000 Pounds But it is no wonder to find our Author mistaken in matters of this Nature when in so publick a thing as that King Edward had but one Parliament in his whole Reign he hath not been at the pains to turn over the Book of Statutes for there he would have found that King Edward's first Parliament was dissolved the 15th of April 1552 and a Second Parliament was called and opened the First of March following and was dissolved the last Day of that same Month. So that there were two Parliaments in this Reign and the Second was dissolved by an Act of the King 's and not by his Death I do confess these are not great Matters yet this may be drawn out of them that our Author who pretends to have examined the Transactions of that Time with so much exactness took things upon trust without giving himself the trouble to enquire into them so critically as was necessary for one that was resolved to pass a Judgment upon them XXVII He expostulates upon the Inhibition of preaching put upon the Bishops except in their own Cathedrals which agrees ill with the Censure that Fox passes upon them as Dumb Prelates And after this there was a general Inhibition on the whole Clergy hindring them to preach till a Uniform Order of Doctrine should be set out in which some Bishops and other Learned Men were then employed by the King's Order As for this Inhibition upon Bishops to preach except in their Cathedrals it is a Fiction of our Author's for which he can give no Voucher they were not so much as restrained from giving Licences to preach much less to preach themselves over their Diocess The second and general Restraint as it was but for a very short while so the Thing is very doubtful and stands only on Fuller's Credit who was too careless a Writer to be appealed to in any Matter of Consequence XXVIII Our Author cites here the Discourse of Communion in one kind which by all appearance is that lately writ by the Bishop of Meaux This shews that the Author and the Publisher is the same Person though others pretend that the Author is dead many Years ago But it seems the Publisher thought fit at least to add some new touches and since he did that he might have thought it worth the while to have examined at least the Records published by Dr. Burnet and his History it self might have been considered as well as Mr. Fullers and Dr. Heylins But since it seems our Author thought the Discourse of the Communion in one kind fit to be recommended by him I will take the liberty to recommend the Answer to it in French by Monsieur Larroque and that lately writ in English in which the disingenuity of the Discourse
well as their Goods and Chattels to the King. These were the true Motives of repealing those Bloody Laws which our Author ought to have mentioned if he had not designed to deceive his Reader but when he comes to examine the matter of Burning Hereticks he does it so softly that it is plain he would rather lay us asleep than quiet us First he begins with that trifling Answer That the Secular Laws and not the Ecclesiastical do both appoint and execute it but if the Secular Arm is threatned by the Ecclesiastical not only with lower Censures but even with Deposition and that by a Council which he acknowledges to be General in case they do not extirpate Hereticks then this Extirpation is still the Act of the Church enforced upon the Civil Power with a dreadful Sanction which the Church was Able to execute in those Ages of Superstition and thus the Guilt of all the Blood-shed upon the account of Heresie lies at the Door of that Church In the next place he reckons up several Instances of severe Executions against Hereticks both in England and elsewhere which were practiced not only in Henry the Eighth's time but also under Edward the Sixth's and were carried on chiefly by Cranmer's Authority Executions made under Queen Elizabeth and King Iames are also mentioned to which is added a Law made by King Iames adjudging men Traytors for being reconciled to the Pope or See of Rome which is putting men to Death for pretended Heresie and to a Death worse than Burning But to all this I will only say That the Reformation being a work of time as men did not all at once throw off all the Corruptions of the Church of Rome so this being the received Doctrine of the Western Church for many Ages that all Hereticks ought to be extirpated if our Reformers did not so soon as were to be wished throw of this Remnant of Popery it is rather to be excused and pitied in them than to be justified their Practice Cranmer did also soften the Notion of Heresie as much as he could by reducing it to a plain and wilful Opposition to some of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and if the constant Clamours that the men of the Church of Rome raised against the Reformation as a Subversion of the Christian Religion because some that had been among the Reformers advanced some monstrous Opinions if these I say carried our Reformers to such a way of justifying themselves of this Imputation by some publick Executions they who gave the occasion to this severity which I do not pretend to justifie ought not to reproach us for that to which they drove our Ancestors As for King Iames's Law I will not examine whether the Death of Traitors or the Burning of Hereticks is the more dreadful it is certain Fire especially when it is slow is the most terrible of all deaths and that which gives the most formidable Impression but if the Provocation given to the King and Parliament at that time by the Gun-powder Treason be considered it will not appear strange if the King and Parliament after they had escaped so narrowly the greatest of all dangers took a little more than ordinary Care to secure themselves against the like Attempts in time coming And if the severe Canons of the Council of Lateran against Hereticks had lain as so many dead Letters in the Body of the Laws of their Church as that Law hath done in our Book of Statutes they had had much less Blood to answer for and less guilt than lies upon them at present After these softnings our Author comes to pass his own Censure on the Burning of Hereticks but the common Rules of Prudence should have led him in the present juncture of Affairs to have condemned it roundly and so to have laid our apprehensions a little yet he saw so plainly that this was a practise so clearly authorized both by Law and Custom in their Church that he durst not disown it in express words and indeed he understands so little how a tender point ought to be touch'd that by all the Rules of Prudence he ought not to have medled with it His Discourse in this is an Original and because I 'le do him no wrong in the manner of Representing it I will set it down in his own Words But whether this Law in it self be just and again if just whether it may be justly extended to all those simple People put to death in Queen Maries days such as St. Austin calls Hereticis Credentes because they had so much Obstinacy as not to recant their Errors for which they saw their former Teachers sacrifice their Lives especially when they were prejudiced by the most common contrary Doctrine and Practice in the precedent Times of Edward the 6th and had lived in such a condition of Life as neither had means nor leasure nor capacity to examine the Churches Authority Councils or Fathers ordinarily such Persons being only to be reduced as they were perverted by the contrary fashion and course of the times and by Example and not by Argument either from Reason or from Authority and the same that I say of these Laity may perhaps also be said of some illiterate Clergy whether I say this Law may justly be extended to such and the highest suffering Death be inflicted especially where the Delinquents are so numerous rather than some lower Censures of pecuniary Mulcts or Imprisonment these things I meddle not with nor would be thought at all in this place to justifie Here is a long Period of 208 Words before the Verb comes to close it but there is small comfort in all this for even after our Author hath put the Case with all possible Abatements and as soft as may be of the ignorances the strong prejudices and the numbers of the Delinquents and intimated his merciful inclinations only towards the Laity and some of the illiterate Clergy and that only with relation to Death Fines and Imprisonments being left out of the Grace that he would shew us yet in conclusion he only tells us He will not meddle with this matter nor would he be thought at all to justifie it in this place for he is only concerned what we think of him and whether he justifies it or not he only tells us he would not be thought to do it and yet lest that seem too much he adds a further Qualification that he would not be thought to justifie it in this place So that he hath fully reserved all his Rights entire to a fitter opportunity and then he well may without the least Reproach justifie that in another place which he doth not think fit to do at present Yet it seems he hath a very narrow heart in matters of Grace for this same scanty measure of Favour that he had clogg'd with so many Reserves is yet retrenched considerably in the following Words Tho some among those unlearned Lay-people I confess to have
Precontract being with the Earl of Northumberland he had by a solemn Oath and by his receiving the Sacrament upon it in the Presence of the Duke of Norfolk and some others of the Privy Council denied any such Precontract Of which Dr. Burnet assures us he saw the Original Attestation under that Earl's own hand This had so far invalidated the Queens Confesssion that it seems the Parliament would not descend into the specifying of her Confession Dr. Burnet hath also given several Evidences of her being at that time so much disordered by Vapours that this doth in a great measure weaken the Credit of her Testimony even against her self Upon this whole matter then there are three important Considerations which arises out of the Fact and any one of these seems strong enough to overthrow all the Inferences that can be drawn from that part of our Story 1. She was a Person condemned now all the Examinations of Persons condemned are by the Laws of all Nations only Presumptions but not Proofs the Terrors of Death and the Hardiships of a Prison are such just abatements that Confessions so made can never have that Credit given them as to found any Sentence upon them but in that Queens Case there are two things which give this General Consideration yet more force as to her particular The one is That it being in the King's Power to order her either to be Burnt or Beheaded the Terror of the former might carry her to say any thing that might procure her the softer Death But the other was yet stronger it was a natural-enough Temptation to her to lead her to confess a Pre-contract since by that Confession she might hope so far to extinguish the Crime for which she was condemned as to obtain her Life by that means She was condemned for Adultery now the Confession of a Pre-contract might be drawn from her as a thing that dissolved the Marriage and by consequence acquitted her of the Adultery for which she was condemned since if she was never the Kings true Wife she could not be guilty towards him So that this matter was perhaps represented to her as that which must certainly save her Life And thus this Confession being grounded on the fears of Death and carrying in it the hopes of Life can be of no force in Law. 2. The bare Confession of a Pre-contract without any other Adminiele or Evidence to confirm it cannot be supposed a just ground to dissolve a Marriage otherwise Married Persons when they grow weary of one another may dissolve their Marriage by taking a false Oath It 's true in other cases the Parties own Confession is strong enough in Law against themselves but in this case both the married Persons being equally concerned in the Tie that follows upon it the Confession of the one cannot dissolve the Right that accrued to the other upon the Marriage and since two Witnesses are necessary in all such Cases the Confession of one of the Parties is at most but the single Evidence of one Witness and therefore Ann Bullens Confession could not make the Marriage void This is further confirmed by the Denial of the Person with whom the Pre-contract was preteneded to be made if her Confession gave such a Credit to the matter as to annul her subsequent Marriage with the King it ought likewise to have annulled the Earl of Northumberland's Marriage therefore it could not be received in Law. The other circumstances of it do also concur to weaken its credit it was so secretly carried that one of the Judges of that time tells us only that it was reported that she had confessed a Pre-contract so that it was not managed with the necessary Forms of Justice and it being probable that some General Promise of Marriage had passed between her and the Earl of Northumberland it is not likely that she understood the difference between a Promise and a Contract so she might especially in such a Hurry and under so much disorder mistake the one for the other 3. But in the last place it is to be considered that here was an Innocent Child in the case whose Legitimacy and Right could not be cut off by her Mothers extorted Confession Infants are more particularly under the protection of the Law and therefore Acts passed against them in that state of Feebleness have such flaws in them that they have always a right to reverse them so a single Witness in such Circumstances as her Mothers were could not be sufficient to disgrace and disinherit her and the Confirmation of the Act of Parliament that followed afterwards might have been a forcible bar in Law to her but could be no just one for as a Bastard is still a Bastard even tho he were Legitimated by Act of Parliament so a lawful Child is still what 't is notwithstanding a Sentence of Bastardy confirmed in Parliament and this is so true and was so evidently the Practice of that time that even King Henry in his suit of Divorce with Queen Catherine was willing to have his Daughter Mary declared Legitimate because Children begat in a Marriage are begotten bona fide and so they ought not to suffer because of the secret fault of their Parents And if this was yielded in a Marriage where both Parents were according to the Kings Pretensions guilty of Incest it was much more just in this Case of Ann Bullen even supposing her Precontract true for her secret fault ought not to blemish nor ruin her innocent Child Another Instance that fell out at this time in the Royal Family is very considerable and because it is little known I fancy the Reader will not be displeased to have it particularly opened to him Henry the 8th's Sister that was Queen of Scotland did after her Husband King Iames the 4th's Death marry the Earl of Angus and by that Marriage she had a Daughter Lady Margaret Douglas Some time after her Marriage she fell to be in ill terms with her Husband and discovered a Pre-contract he had given to another and upon this she sued him in the Spiritual Court and it being proved the Marriage was annulled but her Daughter was still held to be Legitimated and was entertained by King Henry as his Niece and given by him in Marriage to the Earl of Lenox of whom descended the Lord Darnly that was King Iames the 1st of England's Father and since he was considered to be the Second Person in the Succession to the Crown of England after the Queen of Scots this shews that by the Practice of that Time a Pre-contract even legally proved yet did not illegitimate the Issue that were begotten bona Fide by one of the Parents And thus I hope enough is said to overthrow the Objection that is made to the first Constitution of our Church under Q Eliz it was strangely put and decently and weightily writ and therefore I have answered it with the like Decency of Stile so that if I treat the