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
here while he is in England he will condemn these treasonable Doctrines The ground upon which he condemns them is also suitable to the Condemnation it self For he says that this is the Opinion of several Catholicks This was modestly expressed For tho it is true that several of those he calls Catholicks are of this mind yet all Catholicks are not of it So that the Doctrine of murdering Kings is at least a probable one and since the Decrees of the Church of Rome for the deposing of Princes fall not only on those that are Hereticks themselves but even on the Fautors and Favourers of Hereticks I do not see how his Majesty's Life is secured For besides the Protection and Liberty that he grants to Hereticks of his own Dominions he hath received and encouraged the Refuges of another Prince which is to be a Favourer of Heresy of the worst sort So that if Innuendoes were in fashion I do not see how our Author could defend himself against an Indictment of Treason or at least against an Information Our Author to let us see how wary he is in his Concessions as he calls them ends the Paragraph with another It shall be granted here For it is plain he will not loose an inch of all the Papal Pretensions but will preserve them entire to a better time XXXIX Our Author pretends that Q. Elizabeth's Supremacy was carried much higher than had been granted by the former Clergy under K. Henry the 8th The Allegation is false for the Supremacy was carried much higher under King Henry than it was under Queen Elizabeth who as she would not accept of the Title of Head of the Church so she explained her Supremacy both in her own Injunctions and in the Acts of Convocation and Parliament that followed in so unexceptionable a manner that our Author himself hath nothing to object to it He seems also to infinuate as if the King's Supremacy were asserted by us as a Grant of the Clergy whereas we pretend to no such thing The Civil Supremacy that we ascribe to our Princes is founded on the Laws of God on the Rules of Humane Society on the Laws of England and on the Practice of the Church for many Ages and King Henry receiv'd no new strengthning of his Title by the Act of the Clergy which did not confer any new Authority on him but only declared that which was already inherent in him XL. Our Author enters into a long Discourse to prove the Invalidity of Orders granted in our Church which he doth so weakly and yet as he doth all other things so tediously and with so much Confusion that I have no mind to follow him in all his wandrings He seems to question the Authority of Suffragan Bishops who though they were limited as to their Iurisdiction yet as to their Order they were the same with the other Bishops The Proceedings in Queen Mary's Time were too full of Irregularity and Violence to be brought as Proofs that the Orders given by King Edward's Book were not valid In a word the Foundation of that false Opinion of some of the Church of Rome was that ever since the Time of the Council of Florence the Form in which Priests Orders were conferred was believed to be the delivering the Sacred Vessels with a power to offer Sacrifices for the Dead and Living So they reckoned that we had no true Priests since that Ceremony was struck out of our Ordinal But the folly of all this is apparent since Men began to examine the Ancient Rituals and those which have been published by Morinus shew that as this Rite is peculiar to the Roman Church so it was not received before the Ninth Century And since all Ordinations during the first Eight Centuries were done by the Imposition of Hands and Prayer then there can be no reason to question our Orders since we retain still all that the Ancient Church thought necessary As for the common Observation of our Ordinals not being enacted by Queen Elizabeth before the Eighth Year of her Reign it hath been so oft made and answered that I am 〈…〉 see our Author urge it any further Would he that hath disputed so much against the Civil Authorities medling in Matters Sacred annul our Orders because the Law was not so clearly worded with relation to that part of our Offices The most that can possibly be made out of this is that the Ordinations were not quite legal so that one might have disputed the paiment of the Fruits But this hath no relation to us as we are a Church in that the Book of Ordinations having been annexed to the Book of Common-Prayer in King Edward the Sixth's Time the reviving of the Book of Common-Prayer in Queen Elizabeth's Time was considered as including the Book of Ordinations Though it s not being expresly named this gave occasion to Bonner to question the validity of them in Law. Upon which the Explanatory Act passed declaring that it had been the Intention of the Parliament to include that in the Book of Common-Prayer So that this Act only declared the Law but did not create any new Right I have now gone over all that I judged most material in this tedious Book The darkness of the stile the many unfinished Periods the frequent Repetitions the many long Quotations to very little purpose above all the intricate way of Reasoning made it a very ungrateful thing to me to wrestle through it In it one may see how much a Man may labour and study to very little purpose For how unhappy soever the Author hath been in his pains it cannot be denied but he hath been at a great deal to compass it But a Man that neither sees things distinctly nor judges well of them the more he toils about them he entangles himself and his Reader so much the more So that never was so much pains taken to less purpose If our Author gives us many more Books of this size both as to Sincerity and good Reasoning he will quickly cure the World of the Mistake in which they were concerning him He passed once for a Learned Man and he had passed so still if he had not taken care to let the World see by so many repeated Essays how false a Title he hath to that Reputation which had fallen upon him But it seems his Sincerity and good Judgment are of a piece Otherwise as he could not obtrude on the World the falsehoods concerning latter times and the Ignorance of Antiquity that appears in all his Books so when so many have been at the pains to discover both his Mistakes and his Impostures He would either have confessed them or some way excused them But it is no wonder to see a Man that dissembled so long with God and that lied so oft to him serve the World now as he did his God for so many Years I pray God touch his Heart and give him a Repentance proportioned to the heinousness of his Sins by which he hath given so much Scandal to the Atheistical sort of Men who from him must be tempted to draw strange Consequences And he hath certainly brought a greater Reproach on that Church to which he hath gone over than all the Services he can ever render them in his useless and confounded Writings will be able to wipe off But to whom sovever he hath been a Reproach our Church hath no share in it since of him and of such as he is we must say They went out from us but they were not of us For if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us FINIS P. 82. ad finem From p. 140. Page 141. Adorat of the Euchar. p. 28. P. 139. Ephes. 5. 24. Col. 3. 20. Page 87 88. 2 Chron. 17. 7. 2 Chron 9. 5 8. V. 11. 2 Chron. 29. 5. V. 34. 2 Chron. 30. 23. Numb 9. 10. Ezra 7. 25. Nehem. 13. 28. Ludolph P. 20. lin 12. P. 21. Hist. Reform P. 1. Re◠Bo. 2. n. 10. Ibid n. 24. Nam qui Reginae odio vel speratae sec dum forsan notae futurae conjugis illecib◠titillatione Regem agi putant ij ex cordes plane toto quod aiunt coelo errare videntur Ibid. P. 22. Cott. Lib. Vit. B. 13. P. 23. ◠25. Printed in the Cabala P. 26. P. 28. P. 39. 25 Henry 8th n. 14. P. 41. Hist. Reform Rec. b. 2. n. 37 38 39. P. 51. P. 78 79. P. 57. P. 58. P. 64. P. 68. P. 71. P. ibid. P. 72. P. 84. P. 90. P. 93. P. 9◠P. ibid. P. 108. P. 110. P. 111. P. 119. P. 127. P. 134. P. 135. P. 142. P. 157. P. 160. Ibid. Tolet. can 10. §. 75. c. 13. 1040. Vita Gul. Abb. Dijon c. 4. P. 162. P. 176 273. P. 187. P. 208. P. 120. P. 2.
Judgment of all these positions which are laid down as the Foundation of this Work. The First is That the two principal Offices which the Clergy have received from Christ are 1. To determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judg what is Truth and what are Errors in Faith and Worship 2. To teach and promulgate this Truth and to execute Church-censures on those who receive it not All this is true but since our Author doth not prove that the Clergy are infallible in their Decisions which is not so much as pretended by any with relation to National Churches this only proves that it is the duty of the Clergy to declare and publish the truth but as the Body of a National Clergy may err so in case it should actually err can it be supposed that the People and the Prince are bound to err with it Synods are of great use for the Unity of the Church and a vast respect is due to their Decisions but since our Author names the Synods of the Arrians the many Synods that they had which were very numerous and were gathered from all parts gave them all the advantages from this Authority that could be desired so that if the Council of Nice had not had truth of its side I do not see why the Visible Authority should not rather be thought to lye on the Arrian side The Princes Authorizing a Synod or his Opposing it is to be justified or condemned from the Decisions that are made by it if they are good he ought to support them and if they are bad he ought to oppose them and in this he must judg for himself as every other man must do the best he can as knowing that he must be judged by God. The Second is That the Clergy cannot make over this Authority to the Secular Governour being charged by Christ to execute it to the end of the World. Upon which he arraigns Two things 1. The Clergies binding themselves never to make any Decisions in matters of Faith or Worship till they had first obtained the consent of the Secular Governour 2. The Clergies Authorizing the Secular Governour or those whom he should nominate to determine those matters in their stead It is certain no Clergy in the World can make any such Deputation and if any have done it it was a Personal Act of theirs which was null of it self and did not indeed bind those who made it it being of its own nature unlawful but much less can it bind their Successors but if the Church of England never did neither the one nor the other what a Prevaricator and False Accuser is he who as he lied long to God and Man when he pretended to be of this Church so resolves now to lye concerning this Church as much as ever he did to it The submission of the Clergy related only to New Canons and Constitutions as the other Act empowering a select number to be nominated by the King to form a Body of a Canon-Law related only to the matters of the Government of the Church the Religion and Worship had no relation to it so a compromise as to matters of Government is very unjustly stretched when this is made a surrender of the Authority of determining and declaring matters relating to Doctrine and Worship which no Church-man without breach of the most sacred of all Trusts can deliver up but in the matters of Ecclesiastical Policy all States in the World have felt enough from the Yoke of the Papacy to give them just reason to assure themselves against any more of such Ecclesiastical Tyranny besides that in all the engagements tho made in Terms that are general such as are all Oaths of Obedience and in particular those that are made by Prelates to the Popes exceptions are still understood even when they are not expressed As long then as the Church enjoys a Protection from the Civil Authority she is bound to make returns of all engagements not only of Submission but of Obedience But tho the one is perpetual the other has its limits and when the Church finds its oppressions from the Civil Power really to over-ballance the Protection that she receives from it in that case she must resolve to fall into a state of Persecution and all the engagements that any body of the Clergy have made relating only to the maintaining a peacable Correspondence with the Civil Powers they do not at all bind up Church-men from doing their Duty in case the Civil Authority sets it self to overthrow Religion Besides when both Religion and the Worship and the Constitution of a Church is once established the adding new Canons may perhaps be of great use to a Church but yet it cannot be supposed to be so indispensably necessary but that rather than give any distaste to the Soveraign they may content themselves with what they have without asking new Canons and a Church under a Body of Canons may likewise resign up the compiling of these into a new System and the leaving out such as are found inconsistent with the Publick Peace to such persons as shall be nominated by the Prince but all this how general soever the words may be hath still a tacit exception in it which all that know the Principles of Law will grant The Third Thesis is That the Prince cannot depose any of his Clergy without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or their Ecclesiastical Superiors and in particular of the Patriarch In this the matter must still be reduced to the former Point Either the Grounds of such a Deposition are in themselves just or not if they are just the Prince may as lawfully hinder any Church-man from corrupting his Subjects while he is supported by a Publick Authority or a setled Revenue as he may hinder a man that hath the Plague on him from going about to infect his People for his deposing such a one is only the taking the Civil Encouragement from him but when this is done unjustly it is without doubt an act of high Oppression in the Prince and as for the Person Deposed and those over whom he was set they are to consider according to the Rules of Prudence whether the present Case is of such importance that it will ballance the inconveniences of their throwing themselves into a state of Persecution for it is to be confessed that Church-men have by their office an indefinite Authority of feeding the Flock which cannot be dissolved by any act of the Princes but the appropriating this to such a Precinct and the supporting it by Civil Encouragements is a humane thing and is therefore subject to the Soveraign Power The Princes of Iudah notwithstanding an express Law of God which appropriated the Priesthood and the High-Priesthood to such a Family and Race of men did turn them oft out and Iehosaphat sent to his Princes to teach in the cities of Iudah and with them he sent about also Priests and Levites
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
matter which is at this day practiced in most of all the States of Christendom Otherwise Civil Government were a very feeble thing if it could not preserve its Members from the arbitrary Proceedings of Ecclesiastical Courts And indeed if the Canons and Rules made by the Popes and such Synods as were absolutely at their disposal were the measures of Heresy so that Judgments ought to pass upon them and that States might not cover themselves from them by Laws we know where this must carry us and how many Bonfires must be quickly made in England But God be thanked it is not come to that I must also add one thing That if the Judgment of Heresy had carried with it nothing but the Ecclesiastical Censures of Excommunications and Anathema's the Church might have pretended that the State ought not to meddle too much in it But since Heresy not only drew after it an Infamy in Law but likewise a Writ de Heretico Comburendo according to another Canon acknowledged to be in force by our Author then a State ought to have made such Regulations in this matter as were necessary to protect its Members from such a Butchery For since the Civil Government is bound to secure the Subjects while they continue Innocent and Obedient from the Rage of all their Enemies our Legislators had betrayed their Trust if they had not put an effectual Stop to the Tyranny of the Clergy And thus it is plain That this Declaration made by the Parliament was nothing but a securing to the Subjects their Lives and Fortunes to which they had formerly a very doubtful Tenure since they held them only at the Discretion and Mercy of the Clergy IX But because our Writers have often alledged the Laws made in former times Chiefly the Statute of Premunire made by Richard the 2d against all Bulls and Provisions from the See of Rome Our Author answers this very weightily as he thinks by shewing us That those Laws related only to some special matters that were temporal Things such as the Titles to Benefices or the Translation of Bishops out of England without the Kings consent by which both the King might be deprived of their Counsel and the Treasure of the Kingdom carried away out of it But all this is trifling For a Contest being raised concerning the extent of the Popes Power the Pope claims a degree of Authority to be committed to him by Christ and that the whole Pastoral Work belonged to him Upon this the King and Parliament set bounds to it Now the Question arises out of this Whether the same Authority that warranted them to determine against the Pretensions of that Court in that one Point did not warrant them likewise to do it in other Points To a man of a clear understanding the Matter will appear to be past dispute For if in one Point a Parliament may contradict the Popes Declarations and Canons sure it may do it in another and the only Question then to be examined will be concerning the matter of such Laws For if the matter of those Laws is good the Authority is certainly good and if the matter is not good it is confessed that an Act of Parliament cannot change the nature of things But because this matter is better understood by some Breves printed by Dr. Burnet it will be worth the while to examine it a little more fully That vigorous Act of Parliament came out indeed in the Reign of a feeble Prince but the Popedom at that time was in a more feeble State and the adherence of England to the Pope who sat at Rome was in that time of Schism so valuable a support that those at Rome it seems thought it fit to take no notice of it But the Council of Constance had no sooner heal'd that Wound then the Popes were resolved to have that Law repealed and England falling again under a new Feebleness in Henry 6th Minority and Factions at Home and Losses in France having sunk the Reputation of the Government extreamly the Pope laid hold of that Conjuncture and in his Letters both to the Arch-Bishops and Clergy and to the King and Parliament he Annuls the Statute and requires the Clergy to give it no Obedience declaring all Persons that obey it to be ipso facto Excommunicated and they should not be relaxed by any but himself unless it were at the point of Death and he ordered the Clergy to Preach this Doctrine to all the People He required the Parliament under pain of Damnation to repeal it and he founds his right in the Commission that Christ gave to St. Peter to feed the Flock Here sure if ever the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra yet for all this the Parliament would neither repeal nor explain the former Statute By all which it is plain that our Parliament did not think themselves bound to be born down by big Words and high Pretensions In this Dispute then between the Spiritual and Temporal Power we see the Parliament judged the matter and by the same right that they judged one Point they may judg other Points and if the matter of their Judgment was good their Judgment was as valid under Henry the Eighth as under Richard the Second or Henry the Sixth For the Point being once yeilded that the Civil Authority may examine the Decisions of the Church then this may be certainly carried to other particulars or applied to a greater extent of matter as further discoveries of Truth and new Provocations may arise X. The Affinity of the matter leads me here to make a leap over several Particulars which I will afterwards review and to examine that which our Author hath thought fit to say concerning the burning of Hereticks only by the way I must take notice of the unfaithful Recital that he makes of the two Statutes made against Hereticks under Henry 4th and Henry 5th which he represents as if they had merely left the Judgment of Hereticks to the Ordinary or Diocesan without any thing else by which the Repeal of them must appear to be the taking away that Judgment from the Spiritual Courts but there were other and more important Clauses in those Acts which gave the Parliament just Reason to repeal them In the former the Civil Magistrates are required to be personally present at the giving of Sentence against Hereticks and after the Sentence was passed they were to receive them and there before the People in a high place to be brent Here was the poysonous Sting in that Act which our Author was not faithful enough to mention and in that past by Henry 5th all Magistrates were required to take an Oath when they entred upon their employments That they should use their whole Power and Diligence to destroy all Heresies and Errors called Lollards and to assist the Ordinaries and the Commissaries in their Proceedings against them and all convict of Lollardy were to forfeit all the Lands that they held in Fee-simple as