John his base râ—signation exercise over England a particular authority that after the Reformation and the shaking of the papal voke the Oath of Supremacie was brought in to exclude all forraign Iurisdiction and reinstate the King is his Civill Authority That Henrie the 8th did indeed set up a Civill Papacie but the Reformation of England was never dated from his breach with Rome that the Oath of supremacie was never designed to take away the Churches intrinseck Power or to make the power of Ordination of giving Sacraments or of Discipline to flow from the King that however because the generality of the words might suggest scruples they are explained in an Act of Parliament of Q. Elizabeth and in one of the 29. Articles and morefully by B. Usher with King Iames approbation And lastly since we have this oath from England none ought to scruple the words being sufficiently plain and the English meaning ours This is the full and clear account which you promise But who knows not these poor and insignificant pretenses King Iohn's resignation was indeed so base that by all disinterested it was ever held to be invalid and in after times scarce ever mentioned let be pleaded It is therefore the Pop's general tyrannie and what it was and whether abolished in these Kingdomes or in effect only transferred from him to the Prince that we are here to consider And I think I may take it for granted that you judge the Pope's exorbitant usurpation specially his assumming to himselfe not an external assisting oversight which we grant to be the proper right of Princes but by way of an intrinseck and direct power the sole and uncontrolable care of the Church her ministry and ministers with his arrogating an architectonick power in the ordering of Gods Worship so that in all Ecclesiastick meetings and matters therein proposed he may enact what canons he pleases to be parts of the Papal tyranny not only as in him but in all men under our Lord Jesus Christ unwarrantable and antichristian nay some of these are points of so high a nature that the greater part even of the members of the Romish Church do reclaim against them Now questionlesse if this power be to the Pope unlawful and incompetent all secular persons and Princes are therefore much more excluded in asmuch as the Pope being at least in shew a Church-man and according to the hypothese even of your Hierarchy the first Bishop of the westerne if not of the whole Church he is fortified by certain seeming pretenses of which the clame of civil Princes is wholly destitute To come then to our purpose that after the Reformation the Popish yoke not only as to the particulars above mentioned but also as to his forreign Jurisdiction unlawfully usurped over Church-men in civills to the prejudice of the King's Soveraignity was righteously shaken off and the King re-instated in his Civil authority over all Persons and also in all Causes in so far as they are committed to his royal direction and tuition is not at all denyed If that matters had here sisted and upon the abolition of the Papal domination the things of God and of Caesar had been equally restored who could have gain-said it But that on the contrary by the Pop's exclusion and in place of this righteous restitution the King under pretence of the vindication of his own Supremacy did procure to himself a very formal and full translation of what the Pope had not only usurped from him but arrogate from God specially in the things above-specified both the occasion of this change and the manner how this Supremacy hath since been exercised do aboundantly declare And for clearing the occasion it may be remembred 1. That the Peter-pence called in the beginning the King's almes imposed by on Ina King of the West Saxons was discharged by Act of Parliament in the reigne of Edward the Third and the contention anent the exemption of Church-men from the King's Courts most hotly agitate in the reigâ—es of Henry Second and King Iohn was composed many years before the dayes of Henry the Eight So that neither that exaction nor this old debate and far less King Iohn's most invalide resignation not worth the naming could be the cause of King Henry his acclaiming the Supremacy 2. The only motive that we find in History whereby Henry was instigat to reject the Pope and to declare himself to be supreme in causes Ecclesiastick aswell as civil was his purpose of divorce from Queen Katharine wherein finding himself abused by the Pope and his Legates their delayes he discharges all appeals to Rome appointing them to be made from the Comissary to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and from the Archbishop to the King and is thereafter first called by the Clergy and then declared by the Parliament to be Supreme head of the Church in liew of the Pope whose authority was abrogat by the same Act These things then being certain and you your selfe acknowledging that King Henry did set up a civil Papacy It is easy to determine that this change was not a bare exclusion but a plain translation of the Popes usurped power We know the Reformation of England was never dated from that breach with the Bishop of Rome But what then Can you deny that this was both the rise and establishment of the Supremacy which being transmitted to Edvard the sixth and then renounced by Queen Mary and again restored to the Pope was by Queen Elizabeth reassumed and so continueth untill this day It is true that after the breaking up of the more clear light of Reformation whereby not only Rom's Superstition bot also the Popes usurpation and tyranny in many things was upon better reasons rejected and especially after the succession of Queen Elizabeth to whose Sexe the former title of headship for all the smoothings that had been before used was nevertheless construed not to be so agreeable Many explications were adhibite for qualifying the Supremacy both in answer to the opposition of Papists and for removing the offence of the Protestant Churches But the truth is these explications though more sound in their grounds yet in their explication were nothing conclusive as to the present debate and their Authors arguing for the Supremacy from the examples of reforming Kings and Emperours acting not by vertue of an assumed prerogative but only from that extraordinary power which the necessity of the end upon the failzour of other midses doth measure out to Princes first and to others also if in a competent capacity did rather infer the justification of the work then conclude the approbation of the Supremacy notwithstanding it was therein imployed Nay while by these their reasonings they went about from such extraordinary interpositions only warranted by the exigence of necessity and the rectitude of the work thereby effectuat to establish to the Prince a constant setled authority properly conversant about these matters the argument is far more
me to a discovery which rendreth its event so dishonourable to our King's memory Having run thorow so many examples with such success as we have spoken you conclude And thus I have cleared the Churches abroad of that inâ—urious stain you brand them with But seeing I have so mamanifestly discovered your falshood and presumption in this matter I will not insult over this your folly You go on in the next place to our Britain and tell us of the English Reformation and how that it was stained with no blood save that of Martyrs and that indeed was no stain but as you do well correct your selfe its chief Ornament But Sir if the Reformation in other places were no less confirmed and rendred glorious by this zeal and testimony and withall the People by defensively resisting when in a sufficient capacity did evidence a greater and more universal constancy not versatile by every blast of Authority and ambulatory at Princes their pleasure doth it not rather augment then diminish their praise You adde That in England though a Popish and persecuting Queen interveened betwixt the first Reformation of King Edward and the second of Queen Elizabeth yet none rebelled And what then Pray Sir how or wherefore doth Scotland want that glory Sure I am that the Reformation being established in Scotland after a sharp war and by the way you may remember that Queen Elizabeth sided with the subject both by Pacification Authority and determination of a General Assembly yet we received Queen Mary from France a declared violent Papist without the least question anent her right of Government or any opposition moved against her until provoked by such weakness wickednesse as I am ashamed to mention Wherein then in this regard are we inferior to England unless it be that neither for the favour nor fear of a woman we were moved by any publict act let be by vote of Parliament as the Representative of that Nation to deny the â—aith and again take on theyoke of the Romane Antichrist Or how are you not ashamed to reproach your Nation with a nimious fervour specially upon this occasion wherein our worthy Reformers did make the Court complyance back-drawing and lukwarmness of a few temporizers their great and continual complaint In the next place you tell us that all that travelled the World can witness that we were not approven in our late rebellion and passing by Diodat Spanhem Rivet Salmasius Blondel Amerald de Moulin and others not named as all either in print or publick discourse declaring for you you say There was an act made by the Consistory of Charentoun that no man should be barred the communion for the Scots Excommunication except it were for a crime And this forsooth was a loud declaration of their disowning of our practice 'T is answered 1. Though you could give a account of the opinion of the Nations abroad concerning our late wars yet their judgement in matters so remote from their knowledge and wherein the favour generally born to Kings specially when so fatally unfortunat as Charles the first was is able to create in the most part very little inquisitive a very strong prejudice cannot amount to a testimony of any moment 2. That the more knowing among them did both by their Histories and other writtings also by their letters approve our proceedings might be very easily made out by an unanswerable condescendence nay that the generality both of Dutch and French Protestants did condemne the King's party and their practices I am certain none of these to whom you appeal in this matter can justly disown it As for Diodat and the rest you name why do you not eâ—hibite their words You say indeed for some of them very wisely and safely That they did only declare themselves in their Discourses and Sermons And for these I think you must be excused because you heard them not But for the rest I ingage that whatever passages you shall adduce from them on your part I shall redargue either their information in matter of fact or their reasons in matter of Right to the satisfaction of all unbyassed men Beside Salmasius is most exceptionable in respect he was imployed and got money in the cause and yet in the judgement of many though he had unanswerable advantages as to the main design of his defence he was even in that shamefully baffled And for Amerauld read but his own vain and ridiculous Dedication of his paraphrase upon the Psalmes to the King in the year of his restitution and I am certain you will allow us to think the want of his suffrage no prejudice to our cause Now for your act made at Charenton I confess your not producing of it doth the more dissatisfy because you represent it in termes little consistent viz. That the Scoâ—s Excommunication should not debar unless it were for a crime That you take a crime in this place in its larger acceptation for an offense and not in that more strict and proper wherein Lawyers use it it were disingenuity in me for to call it in question But then how Excommunication can otherwise proceed without the allegation of any crime as you seem to accuse us is indeed to me a difficulty inexplicable whereof I am sure our Church could not be guilty and therefore seing the Consistorie could not doubt that the Church of Scotland did hold an offense and obstinacie to be the necessary causes of excommunication for them to have â—lighted the tryal by us made and judged the particular grounds of our procedure not answerable to the general rule had been breach of Christian communion and charity whereof your naked assertion shall never make me think the French Church guilty withal yow know that the Bishop of Galloway whom you alledge to have been upon this act admitted to the Lords Table notwithstanding of his excommunication was excommunicate upon the accusation of clear crimes So that what you call a loud declaration on the Consistories part I apprehend to be only a loud calumny on yours But whatever be in that act or the Bishops admission upon his own information in opposition to all your vain pretenses of contrary Authorities it is certain that not only the truth and right was on our side but also that our practices were approven yea applauded and we therein encouraged by letters from several of the reformed Churches yet extant upon record But in the next place your N. C. Demanding it you undertake to tell him ingenuously what precedents there are in History for subjects fighting upon the account of Religion And the first you say that you know is that of Gregory the seventh arming the subjects of Germanie against Henry the fourth from whom other Popes taking example they made no bones upon any displeasure pretending alwayes some matter of Religion to depose Princes and liberat their subjects As you instance in Frederick the. 1. und 2. Lewes of Bavier and several others but the latest
King 's pretending to an arbitrary and absolute disposal of these previleges thus granted to be an injurious invasion and usurpation Yet in order to the Church and her rights and immunities they are not ashamed to cut off â—o even and just a parallel and deny so evident a consequence in behalf of her righteous liberty But wisdome is justified of her children And how much were it to be wished that at the least the children of light were as wise as the children of this world are in their generation 3. Beside the invasion threatened to the Church in its power of administration and the usurpation from the Church of the power of Government which this Supremacy imports it further attributes to the Prince according to our Parliaments late explication an illimited power in matters of Religion proper and reserved to God alone To enact whatever a man thinketh fit in Ecclesiastick meetings and maâ—â—ers I am certain is that which the Lord did never allow to any meer man under heaven and yet that this power is assumed and how by vertue thereof old unwarrantable superstitions have been retained new rites and ceremonies in Divine Worship devised and Churches turned and overturned according to mens pleasure is sufficiently known without my condescendence And therefore seing the King by vertue of his Supremacy doth not only intermedle by giving his civill sanction and confirmation to the intrinseck powers of the Church by you mentioned as you do allege or by acts imperate as others in contradistinction to elicite acts in these matters doe use to express it but doth lay claime to an absolute power in and over all Church-matters and persons the filly pretense whereby you go about to smooth it is not worthie of any mans notice In the next place you tell us of some explications provided for removing of the scruples which the generality of the words of the oath of Supremacy might suggest And to this it may suffice for answer that seing these explications are certainly confined to England and by no publick Act received or owned among us your allegeance with your childish ground that we have this oath from them is wholly impertinent as to our releifeâ— But seing the setting down of these explications contained in the English act and Articles above cited Which you do counningly omit will not only by comparing therewith the far different practices of the Kings of that Realme discover the inadequatnesse not to say the slightnesse of these sensings in effect meerly devised to palliat an excess in it self nowise justifiable but more fully manifest the strange extravagance both of the practical acceptation and late express interpretation of this Supremacie You may read them as follows the words of the Act in quinto Elizab. Declare her power and Authority to be a soveraignity over all manner of persons borne within the Realme whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal so that no forreigne power hath or ought to have any superiority over them and these of the Articles run thus Art 37. We give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizab our Queen do most plainly testifie but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himselfe that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the civill sword the stubborne and evill doers These being the termes of these explications what consonancie the medlings of their Princes in imposing rites ceremonies and formes of Worship enjoyning their own dayes and profaning God's commanding what Doctrine Ministers should forbear permitting excomunication in their own name jointly with the Lords and finally by sitting and ruling in the Temple of God as in their own Court do hold therto is obvious to the first reflection Only this I must say that if the Kings of England their Ecclesiastick actings be indeed sufficiently warranted by the foregoing explanations the Author of the late discourse of Ecclesiastick policy who in prosecution of the King's Supremacie doth plainly annexe unto it the Authority of the preisthood and power over the conscience at least the obedience of men in matters of Religion in place of that applause wherwith he is generally received at Court deserves rather to be demeaned as the highest calumniator and depraver of his Majesties government But not to trouble you further with these double English senses viz that pretended by their Acts of Parliament and Articles which I grant to be more sound and such wherewith many godly men have rested satisfied and the other more true received and followed by their Court and Clergie nor yet to insist upon your incomparable and blessed Who now hath mens persons in admiration Bishop Usher his more full interpretation equally redargued by what I have alreadie said Let us consider our Scots most excessive though more ingenuous explanation and although I do apprehend the words of the Oath of Supremacie to be in themselves capable of a sound sense and that by understanding supreme Governour of this Kingdomeâ— not to be a limiting designation but a plain qualification of the nature of the government as being in order to its correlat this Kingdome in it selfe civil and only in this notion to be extended to persons and causes ecclesiastick all difficulties may be salved yet when to the rise and manner of this Supremacie above declared I adde how of late it hath been made the ground of the King his restoring of Bishops and framing their government to an absolute dependence upon himselfe granting of the high Commission appointing the constitution of a National Synod and of other strange acts before touched and especially that as the Act Parl. 1592. expresly and justly limiting this Supremacy was by the first Act 〈◊〉 2. Parl. 1661. Wholly abrogate and made voidâ— so by the first Act of the Par. 1669. The same Supremacie is assâ—rted to that absurd hight as doth import a plain surrender of Conscience and submission of all Matters of Religion for as to civills we are not so rash to his Majesties pleasure in a more absolute manner then ever to this day hath been acclaimed either by Pope or general Council These things I say being weighed I think I may safely conclude that I look upon the Supremacie not only as a civill Papacie but an height of usurpation against our Lord King in Zion whereunto never Christian Prince nor Potentate did heretofore aspire And here your N. C. seconding my assertion tells you that this Supremacie clearly makes way for Erastianisme To which you answer That this is one of our mutinous arts to find out long hard names and affixe them to any thing displeaseth us But passing the childishness of this conceite as if either a long or hard name were more odious then a short in my opinion