THE DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England Concerning the Independency of the CLERGY ON THE LAY-POWER AS To those Rights of theirs which are purely Spiritual reconciled with our Oath of Supremacy AND THE Lay-Deprivations OF THE Popish-Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation By the Author of The Vindication of the depriv'd Bishops LONDON Printed MDCXCVII THE CONTENTS § I. THE Independancy of Bishops on the State pretended to be contrary to the Oath of Supremacy P. I. § II. And contrary to the Principles on which the Popish Bishops were deprived and our present Succession depends P. III. § III. The Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greatâ— then that of any Modern particular one P. IV. § IV. Even with regard to our particular Church Our behaviour signifies more Love and Concern for her than that of our late Brethren does P. VII § V. We shew our greater Love to our Churcâ— particularly in not yeilding so easily as they do that she should lose her Rights on any Te 〈…〉 P. IX § VI. What we do is perfectly consistent with the Authorized explication of the Supremacy vested in the King P. XI § VII Archbishop Cranmers Opinions in Henry the VIII's and Edward the VI's time perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authority P. XII § VIII Archbishops Cranmers Authority in these matters none at all P. XV. § IX It is not for the Interest of the Church of Reformation that his Authority in these things should be regarded P. XVII § X. His Opiniens in this matter no more agreable to the Sense of our present Adversaries than to 〈◊〉 P. XXI § XI The Supremacy and Title of Head when first assumed by Henry the VIII consistent with our Doctrine P. XXIII § XII When the King gave the encroaching Commission to Cromwell it was not yet agreeable to the true Sense of the 〈◊〉 P. XXV § XIII The Appeal allowed from the Archbishops to the Kings Commissioners in Chancery no Argument of any Spiritual Power derived from the King P. XXVII § XIV The Supremacy explained 26. H. VIII 1. not contrary to our Doctrine in this Cause P. XXVIII § XV. The Supremacy as explained 37. H. VIII 17. full to our Adversaries purpose and the sense of Archbishop Cranmer P. XXX § XVI The same notion of the Spuremacy continued also under King Edward the VI. P. XXXIII § XVII King Henry the VIII's Reign by no means to be allowed for an Age of Precedents P. XXXV § XVIII Queen Elizabeth explained the Supremacy in a sense consistent with our principles P. XXXIX § XIX That Explication discharges us now from any Obligation to believe Archbishop Cranmers Principles P. XLI § XX. What the Queen requires we can Sincerely undertake and in a Sense fully answering the Imposition of the Leg 〈…〉 ors P. XLIII § XXI The Queens Injunction excuses us from Swearing to the Supremacy over Spiritual Persons in Causes purely Spiritual P. XLVI § XXII This Injunction of Queen Elizabeth still in force P. L. § XXIII The Explication in the Injuctions Authorize by our Church in her XXXVII Article P. LI. § XXIV The same Explication of the Injunctions confirmed by Act of Parliament P. LIII § XXV It is rather supppsed than contradicted by the 2 Canon P. LV. § XXVI The Practice of the Supremacy to our times no Argument of the Imposed Sense of the Legislators against us P. LVIII § XXVII The Objection proposed that our present Protestant Succession seems to depend on the validity of the Deprivation of the last Popish Bishops which was no other than Laical P. LX. § XXVIII The Lay-Deprivations of those Popish Bishops who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power does not by any jast consequence effect our present Case P. LXI § XXIX The Popish Bishops were of another Communion and therefore needed no other Deprivation than that of the Lay-Magistrate P. LXIII § XXX This Doctrine agreeable exactly to the Sense and Practice of Antiquity P. LXVI § XXXI If the Popish Bishops had had a better Title yet that could not have illegitimated Successors any longer than their own Lives P. LXVIII § XXXII If the Popish Bishops then had the better Title yet their discontinuance of their Succession has made their Title worse now P. LXXI § XXXIII Present Settlements give Right where no better Rights is injured by them P. LXXII § XXXIV This is proved from the Donatist and Luciferian Disputes P. LXXIV § XXXV They who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power might yet keep their better Title P. LXXX THE DOCTRINE OF THE Church of England Concerning the Iudependecy of the Clergy on the Lay-Power as to those Rights of theirs which are purely Spiritual reconciled with our Oath of Supremacy and the Lay-Deprivaons of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation § I. SINCE the finishing of the former Discourse I have been warned of one Prejudice ogainst the Doctrine delivered in it concerning the Independancy of Church-Power on the State very necessary to be removed in order to the preparing our late Brethren for an impartial consideration of what we have to say in it's defence That is that as our Case of Protestant Bishops set up in opposition to other Protestant Bishops deprived by an incompetent Authority is new so our Principles on which our Plea in reference to the Schism is grounded are also charged with Novelty if not with regard to the Doctrine of the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church yet at least with regard to the Doctrine of our late common Mother the Church of England and with regard to that later Antiquity which is derivod no higher than the beginning of our Reformation from Popery It is therefore pretended that our Doctrine concerning the undeprivableness of the Bishops by the Lay-Power is inconsistent with the Supremacy asserted to our Princes in all Causes as well as over all Persons that it is therefore inconsistent not only with all the Lay Acts by which the Supremacy has been asserted but also with all those Acts of the Church by with she also hath concerned her self in this Dispute with the xxxvii Article and the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth owned by an Act of Parliament in her Reign for an Authentical Interpretation of the Supremacy with the Doctrine of the Homilies and the several Injunctions of the Ecclesiasticks for explaining and recommending the same Doctrine to the Belâ—ef and Consciences of their Auditors particularly with the Second Canon which Excommunicates all those who deny the Supremacy in any of those branches wherein it was allowed either to Jewish or Christian Princes and with all those Legal Oaths for maintaning it which have been taken not only by the generality of the Laity but the Ecclesiasticks also as many of them as have been admitted to any eminent station in the Ecclesiastical Government Not now to descend so low as a particular enumeration of the suffrages of our most celebrated Writers It
recommend arbitrators She knew none of their differences nor dividing Opinions and therefore cannot be suspected of partiality And it was withal an Argument of her being constituted agreeably to the mind of her blessed Lord that she was so perfectly one Communion as he designed her And the acquiescence of particular Churches in her decision is easier and less mortifying than it would be to any other Arbitrator To return to her is indeed no other than to return to what themselves were formerly before their Divisions or dividing Principles So that indeed for modern Churches to be determined by Antiquity is really no other than to make themselves in their purest uncorruptest condition Judges of their own Case when they have not the like security against impurities and corruptions I cannot understand therefore how even on account of Authority our late Brethren can excuse their pretended Zeal for even our common Mother the Church of England when they presume to oppose her Authority to that of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Church in the first and purest Ages I am sure we have been used to commend her for her deference to Antiquity and to have the better opinion of any thing in her Constitution as it was most agreeable to the Patern of the Primitive Catholick Church Here by the way I think it not amiss to take notice of a mistake common to Dr. Hody and the other Answerer to the Vindication of the deprived Bishops The rather because it is introduced by them both with some insulting triumph The Vindicator had charged his Adversaries with Heresie in regard of their singular opinions on which they insisted so far as to found their Schism upon them This they both retort upon the Vindicator himself as grounding his Defence on opinions now singular and different from the greatest numbers of our present Churches I should have thought their retortion just if the Vindicator had grounded his Defence on Opinions singular in the first Ages of Christianity But they might both of them have observed that the Vindicator did not grant this to have been his own Case He did pretend the Principles insisted on by himself to have been generally received as fundamental to all the Discipline that was practised in the first and purest Ages What was generally received then and therefore to be presumed true because it was so cannot change its nature by being afterwards as generally either forgotten or deserted in later degenerous Ages And as the Vindicators Cause did not so neither did his design nor Topick of Reasoning from the Sense of the Primitive Catholick Church oblige him to be concluded by a generality in these later degenerous Ages But this is again another instance of their advancing the sense of our particular modern Church as a standard of Primitive Catholick Antiquity But this is a deference too great not only for our own Mother but indeed for any particular Church whatsoever at such a distance from Primitive Originals § IV. HERE therefore we cannot be of our Adversaries mind But as for the Duty owing to our particular modern Church which is consistent with her Subordination we still profess as great a Zeal for her as themselves can and are ready to strive with them in a generous Aemulation who shall best express their affection to her and their zeal for her preservation Indeed our difference from them is wholly grounded on such Principles as we should think in all other parallel Cases would be taken for Arguments of a greater affection We are willing for a Vindication of her Rights to expose our selves to all the effects of the displeasure not only of her Adversaries but even of her own late Children and our own late Brethren This is a glory wherein our present Adversaries cannot pretend to rival us Whatever they pretend of good will to her they cannot pretend to suffer any thing for her So far they are froin that that they are not contented to be neuter and at least to connive at their Brethren asserting their common Mothers Rights They defend the Magistrates encroachments on their Ecclesiastical Liberties Even the Ecclesiasticks do so whilst the Magistrate has the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Revenues The Doctor has indeed wisely postponed the Vindication of the Magistrates Right for doing what has been done though nothing short of that can satisfie the Consciences of Ecclesiastical Subjects as to the lawfulness of acquiescence and submission to the Invaders of those Rights which they are by the Constitution obliged to defend as unwilling to expose himself an Ecclesiastick to the odium of betraying them He therefore here proceeds on the Supposition that the Rights of the Church are invaded not only injuriously but invalidly and pretends to prove after his way of proving by naked Facts that we not only may but must submit to the Usurpers Upon this he pretends what the Vindicator says for disproving the Right of the civil Magistrate for doing what has been done to have been impertinent To what end is all this but that he may avoid the Odium of betraying the Rights of his own Function and of defending laical Encroachments on them But I cannot conceive how this will excuse him from this charge He promises in another Book to defend professedly what he is yet so willing to be excused from even the Right of the Magistrate for such Invasions He even here makes all asserting such Rights impracticable and unavailable for preserving them He makes the Bishops whose Rights are invaded obliged in Conscience to yeild as often as they are invaded when the substituted Successor is not a Heretick that is as often as there is no other question but only that concerning Right And what can a Plea of Right signifie for preserving Right that must never be insisted on We know all Laws make frequent cessions of Right at length to extinguish the Right it self Much more that must do so which is perpetual as often as a stronger hand is pleased to invade it Much more that which must be perpetually yielded on obligations in Conscience And what can restrain the Laity from invading them as often as they please when they are told before that the Persons whose Rights they are must not 〈◊〉 ought not oppose them in it if they will be true to Obligations of Conscience When they are told also that this very consideration of an irresistible force is alone sufficient to oblige them to it Suppose notwithstanding the Bishops not satisfied with what he says to prove their obligation to recede yet he makes it impossible for them to assert their Rights for he discharges the Subjects from Duty to them whether they will or no. He pretends the irresistible force sufficient for this purpose whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors will or no. And how then is it possible for such Ecclesiasticks to assert their own Rights when they are oppressed by the irresistible force and deserted by their own Subjects He allows
them indeed a liberty of remonstrating But what can even that avail them when they neither have power to enter their Remonstrances on any Records or to oblige their Adversaries upon their pleading such Records not to suffer such violences to be Precedents for future practice § V. THUS if our common Mothers Authority be urged by our Adversaries as an Argument of their good will to her I cannot see how they can in that regard pretend to rival us They may indeed tell us that our Mother has by her own Act and Deed in the surrendry of the Clergy in King Henry the VIII ths time devested her self of that Authority which before that surrendry was justly her due Whatever the belief of this would signifie to shew our good will to her I am sure we might by doing as the Objectors do better signifie our good will to our selves if we could consistently with our Duty to her qualifie our selves for the favours of the Invaders of her Rights and Priviledges as far as gratifying flesh and blood can be taken for consulting our own Interests But still methinks it should be a greater Argument of our good will to our common Mother to be unwilling that she should on any terms be deprived of whatever was once her due Still it would become well-wishers to her not to be too easie in believing such a cession of Rights though by her self till it were well proved and proved still to be obliging Still it would become well-meaning Children to be willing to contribute as much as lay in them to recover such Rights at any rate of inconvenience to themselves that may be less to the Publick than the loss of such Rights of so great importance for the Publick Interests of Souls And all worldly inconveniences would be reputed less by generous and affectionate Judges of the Publick Interests Such would still be favourable Auditors of what might be produced for discharging her from such Obligations of Conscience which if still in force may make it unlawful now to retrieve and challenge her lost Rights They would be ambitious of prudent and lawful occasions of testifying their love to her at the expence of worldly losses when they might be once secured from any danger of sin in incurring them I am sure it must needs argue more love and good-will to be so Nor could they think it imprudent to retrieve publick Spiritual Rights by losses only private and temporary Especially where there might be the least appearance of Duty that might oblige them to it That very Duty would over-rule loving and dutiful Children beyond all worldly and carnal considerations to the contrary Much more it would do so when the Duty incumbent were pretended of so great importance as this here is by us as that without it we could not have a Church or a Communion any longer than it should please the Civil Magistrate that without it we could have no Principles that might cement us under a Spiritual Government in a state of Persecution at least that might oblige us to do so as most certainly Christ has done When these things were pretended they would at least let us know what might satisfie them if it could not us how these consequences intolerable to a true lover of the Church and Religion might be avoided And till they could do so they could not think the considerations hitherto insisted on by them of an irresistible force c. sufficient to make amends for so abominable consequences But hitherto they have not signified that solicitude for avoiding such consequences which would certainly have become them as hearty lovers of Religion Nor have they attempted any thing on their part for a re-union with such as differ from them in things which would be as much their interest as ours for us all to be unanimous in if they really took the subsistence of our Church and our Communion for our common Interests How then can they even in this regard of their so easily yielding in matters of so intolerable consequence pretend to rival our good will to our common Church and Communion § VI. BUT we must not suffer even our good will to our Mother to mislead us into any Acts of undutifulness to her though it were on pretence of saving her Uzzah laid hold on the Ark with a good design when he thought it in danger of falling Yet God struck him dead upon the place for venturing on his own judgment to shew his zeal for him beyond what was allowable to his Station So among the Romans Fabius Rullianus with great difficulty escaped punishment for venturing on his private Judgment though with as probable a prospect and as great success as his General himself Papirius Cursor could have desired and that for fear of the many ill consequences that might follow on it for the future if such a Fact had been by its impunity recommended to posterity for a precedent But I have already shewn that not to be our case here We do not oppose our private Judgments to any Authority at all But we oppose the publick Judgment of a greater to that of a lower Authority Yet we have no need of insisting on that Plea at present We can fairly reconcile our sense in this affair with the imposed Sense of our dear Mother the Church of England even as established by Law and with the full design of the Legislators as far as that can be gathered from the Cases in prospect of which the Laws were made and with Authentical Interpretations of the meaning of the Legislators themselves allowed by both Powers concerned in them as well the Civil which has imposed them by Civil as the Spiritual which has done the same by Spiritual coercions I know not what our Adversaries themselves can desire more And I cannot but look on it as a peculiar over-ruling Providence that this is capable of being performed in a Reformation wherein the Ecclesiasticks have been so manifestly overborn by the Laity and a Laity headed by a Prince so impatient of restraint as Henry the VIII was Who could expect that where the encroachers made themselves Judges in their own Case and the true Proprietors were forced to submissions and surrendries of their Rights the determinations could be just and equal on both sides § VII IN Henry the VIII th time under whom the Oath of Supremacy was first introduced the Invasions of the Sacred Power were most manifest Yet so that even then they appear to have been Innovations and Invasions But who can wonder at his success considering the violent ways used by him So many executed by him for refusing the Oath The whole Body of the Clergy brought under a Premunire for doing no more than himself had done in owning the Legatine Power of Cardinal Wolsey and sined for it and forced to submissions very different from the sense of the majority of them He did indeed pretend to be advised by some of the
they could they did so it being notorions in those Primitive Times that they had no more consent of the Civil Magistrate for the one than for the other and yet exercised both and were seconded by God in their Acts of Discipline which supposed their claim to both of them But by Archbishop Cranmer ' s Principles the Apostles themselves could lay no claim to either of them without the consent of the Civil Magistrate and therefore could derive no such Rights to Successors claiming from them that could be undeprivable by the Civil Magistrate Had this Doctrine been true Bishops deprived by a lawful Magistrate cou'd have claim'd no longer But even our Adversaries themselves seem sensible now not only how contrary those Paradoxes were to the Sense of truly Catholick Antiquity but also how little agreeable they are to the prevailing Opinion of them who cordially espouse the Cause of Religion in general and of the Church of England in particular even in this present degenerous Age. This being so our Adversaries themselves cannot be displeased at us for disowning a Supremacy explained by and grounded on such Doctrines as even themselves dare not undertake to defend § XII AND such indeed was the Supremacy as it was first introduced by King Henry the VIII and as it was continued under King Edward the VI. Then as much was challenged as could be allowed by even those licentious Principles of Archbishop Cranmer I mean so much was challenged by the Kings themselves and by the Laity who made a majority in the Legislative Power by the Constitution So much was plainly the design of King Henry to whom Cranmer so effectually recommended himself by these Opinions as our Historian observes And the Sense of the Legislative Power cannot be better proved â—â—an from the Expressions of the Laws themselves T 〈…〉 st Law is more modest and though it do own the King for Head of the Body Politick consisting of Spiritualty and Temporalty yet withal it clearly distinguishes their two Jurisdictions and does not make them interfere any further than as that perhaps might be meant by making the King the common Head of both of them For so the words of the Act run The body Spiritual whereof having power when any cause of the Law Divine happened to come in question or of Spiritual learning that it was declared interpreted and shewed by that part of the said Body Politick called the Spiritualty now usually called the English Church which always hath been reputed and also found of that sort that both for knowledge integrity and sufficiency of number it hath been always thought and is also at this hour sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exterior Person or Persons to declare and determine all such doubts and to administer all such Offices and Duties as to their rooms Spiritual doth appertain c. And the Laws Temporal for tryal of Property of Lands and Goods and for the conservation of the People of this Realm in Unity and Peace without rapin or spoil was and yet is administred adjudged and executed by sundry Judges and Ministers of the other part of the said Body Politick called the Temporalty And both their Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoyn together in the due administration of Justice the one to help the other Accordingly it is afterwards enacted that all Causes concerning our Dominions be finally and difinitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the natures conditions and equalities of the Cases and matters aforesaid in contention or hereafter happening in contention shall require Thesâ— things plainly shew the State wherein that assuming Princes â—ound things when he began his Innovations and which all o 〈…〉 to endeavour to restore who desire that the antient bounds of Magna Charta should be preserved inviolable For what security can it give us in our present Settlements if former violations of it in others by not being repealed must be allowed to pass into Precedents for new and future violences when any are possessed of force sufficient to attempt them But this will directly overthrow the Legality of what has been done for depriving our Holy Fathers by a Lay Authority even supposing it Legal It is indeed probable that when this Act was made the King himself designed no such exercise of purely Spiritual Authority by Lay Persons Bishop Burnet himself observes that in Cromwell ' s first Commission as no such Precedency was granted him as was afterwards next the Royal Family so neither was any Authority at all granted him over the Bishops And this Act now mentioned shews plainly that the Case was so All Appeals here of private Persons in Spiritual Causes are ultimately to the Archbishops saving the Prerogative of the Archbishop and See of Canterbury And in Causes wherein the King should be concerned the ultimate Appeal is to the Spiritual Prelates and other Abbots and Priors of the upper House assembled and convocated by the Kings Writ in the Convocation being or next ensuing within the Province or Provinces where the same matter of contention is or shall be begun Thus far therefore it is very plain that neither the Title of Head nor the Supremacy could oblige us to own any Lay Authority whatsoever to be sufficient for a Spiritual Deprivation even interpreted according to the Sense of the Legislators themselves So all the Right that the King as a common Head could pretend to over the Clergy in Causes purely Spiritual was not a Right to give them any Power which they were not supposed to have Antecedently to any exercise of the Kings Authority over them but a Right to oblige them to make a good Use of that Power which they had already received from God But on this Supposition as he can give them no new Power in these matters so neither can he take that Power from them which he never gave them Which will alone be sufficient to ruine the validity of Lay Deprivations § XII HOWEVER Archbishop Cranmer ' s Opinion being so grateful to the King and the Laity who made the majority in the Legislative Power did accordingly prevail But being withal as singular among the Clergy who were notoriously the only competent Judges of Spiritual Rights it prevailed in such a way as one would expect an Opinion labouring under such a disadvantage of true Authority would do that it was urged to the height when either elation of success or an exigence of affairs urged them to such odious extremities otherwise the practise of it was intermitted when cooler thoughts took place as having great presumptions against it that it was unwarrantable and those good ones even in the Opinion of the Governours themselves who having now intirely subdued the Clergy were no longer under any other restraint than that which was from their own Consciences Accordingly after the surrendry of the Clergy when now
all his violences had success according to his own mind the King gave Cromwell a more ample Commission over the Bishops themselves and with Power of Spiritual Coercion answerable to the utmost rigor of these loose Opinions now mentioned And he was a person every way fitted for it As he was an intimate Friend of Archbishop Cranmer ' s so he was also a favourer of that singular Opinion which was so much for the interest of his Commission Our Historian himself takes notice of it as one of the things objected to him at his Attainder that he had said that it was as lawful for every Christian man to be the Minister of that Sacrament of the Eucharist as a Priest This clearly shews that Opinion to have been odious even then in the Consciences of the Attaindors themselves and therefore that their other Acts grounded on that and such like Opinions were not bona fide upon true conviction of Conscience Otherwise they could not have had the confidence to charge the belief of such Opinions as a Crime on him if they had in earnest believed them themselves The odiousness also of such a Power as was exercised by Cromwell appeared also in this that after him there was no Successor substituted in his place with such a Commission as his was nor any general Vicegerent appointed for executing the Kings Supremacy in Spirituals distinct from the Bishops and Archbishops However whilst his Commission held he acted to the height of what his Friend Cranmer ' s Opinion would warrant him He gave out general Injunctions for all Spiritual Jurisdictions as Bishops had done formerly for their own Dioceses He took upon him to call Bishops to an account for their administration in Spirituals Our Historian himself has inserted some of his Letters to this purpose sufficiently Imperious But however odious such general Commissions were for things beyond the Power of the Laity yet the Lay Law-makers could not be restrained from encroachments as they thought they had occasion But this they did by the degrees now intimated § XIII In the next year which was the XXVth of that King's Reign there is an Appeal allowed from the Archbishops themselves to the Kings Majesty in the Kings Court of Chancery And upon such Appeal a Commission was to be directed under the Great Seal to such Persons as should be named by the Kings Highness his Heirs or Successors which Persons so empowered were thereby Authorized to give definitive Sentences from which no further Appeal was allowed This was the very Power which had formerly been allowed to the Pope Accordingly it is enacted that no Archbishop nor Bishop of this Realm should intermeddle with any such Appeals otherwise or in any other manner than they might have done before the making of this Act. So that as the Power of the Pope was by the former Act translated to the upper House of our own Convocation in matters wherein the King himself should be concerned so here the same Power is again translated from the Convocation to the King himself and the Power of the Convocation is transacted by a smaller number and those of the Kings nomination This did put the decision of such Cases as much in the Kings Power as himself could desire though the persons to be nominated by him had been Ecclesiasticks Yet even that confinement is not laid upon him that they should necessarily be so He was therefore at perfect liberty not to exercise any part of this Power by Lay-men any further than as the Ecclesiasticks acting herein by his Commission might be supposed to derive their Power from him who was himself a Lay-man Yet even that was capable of a better Interpretation that the Commission did not give them the Power by which they acted but only Authorized them to exert the Power they had before with impunity from the Secular Laws and with the secular support This was only dare Judices as the Praetor did to particular Causes out of those who were by the Laws qualified and empowered to be Judges in general Thus Constantine the Great did dare Judices to the Donatists Melchiades and other Gallicane Bishops who otherwise was notwithstanding very wary of encroaching on the Bishops Rights in general to judge concerning Spiritual Causes What therefore was done hitherto was fairly reconcilable to our Doctrine without asserting any Right as to Spirituals derived from the King to the Bishops which as it was given by him might consequently be deprivable by him also What the King himself did in giving such a Commission to Cromwell was a Personal Act not granted him by any express Law during the time that Cromwell possessed it and therefore cannot be any just ground for interpreting the Supremacy and the Oath concerning it with relation to Posterity but must have been extinguished with his Person though he had been more constant to it than it appears he was Much more considering that even he himself did not think it fit to continue th Office after Cromwell The same may also be observed concerning the Bishops who took out Commissions for their Spiritual Episcopal Power There being hitherto no Law obliging them to do so must make their Acts also Personal For this is sufficient to shew they were not obliged to it by any Sense of the Legislators which cannot be known but by their Laws There was not so much as Proclamation for it that might reduce it to that Law which was made in the same Reign for equalling the Kings Proclamations with Acts of Parliament though that Law had continued still in force as it is certain it has not Less than one of these will not suffice for proving us concerned in what was then done as an Argument of that Sense of the Legislators which was to oblige all Posterity till the Law was repealed by the same Authority that made it § XIV THE next Act in the XXVIth year of the same King gives him as Head of the Church of England full Power and Authority from time to time to visit repress redress reform order correct restrain and amend all such errors heresies abuses offences contempts and enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed repressed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended c. Here are Spiritual Causes Errors and Heresies given as Instances wherein the King might concern himself And Spiritual Power in all the kinds of it is supposed in these Corrections to be performed by the King when he is allowed to correct all sorts of abuses that might by any manner Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction be corrected No part of the Episcopal Power is here excepted not even that of Excommunication But then it is not even yet determined whether this Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction be supposed in them who are to be by the King obliged to exercise it or whether also the Authority was to be derived from him too If the
Authority was not supposed derived from him it will not follow that it was deprivable by him And if it were not then all the obligation the King could lay upon the Bishops to do as he would have them could not be in Conscience but in Interest so far only as they thought the inconveniences they might incur by his displeasure greater than those the Church might suffer by that imposition on their liberty This therefore might be born with by the Bishops so far as they might judge it reconcilable with the Churches interests And that indeed no more could be intended appears from a Paper published by Bishop Burnet from a Cottonian M S. For there is a full acknowledgment of a distinct Authority in the Bishops from the Potestas gladii lodged in the King Yet it is signed by Cromwell and that after his second and more ample Commission because he signs before the Archbishops And long after this Act between the years 1537. and 1538. as the Bishop himself conjectures Thus far therefore Cromwell himself was not very positive in that Opinion no nor Cranmer who here subscribes among the rest which makes the Spiritual Authority derived from the King So far it was then from being the Authorized Sense of the Legislators But I cannot by any means think it commendable in the Prince to impose even so far though the Right of external force be indeed his Should the Church follow his example she has as good a Right to impose on his Actings in Temporal Causes by her Spiritual Censures as he can pretend to for his interposing in her Spiritual Affairs by his Temporal Force For he cannot pretend to a more immediate Title from God for his Temporal Force than she can for her Right of inflicting Spiritual Censures And if it should be thought reasonable for either of them to make use of that Right of coercion which justly belongs to them both for imposing on the other in matters not belonging to them it would certainly be more reasonable for the Spiritual Power to impose on the Temporal in order to Spirituals than for the Temporal Power to impose upon the Spiritual in order to Temporals For my part I would rather that both would keep within their own bounds that as we must render to God the things that are Gods so we may also render to Caesar the things that are Caesars But whether the Laity did in this Act assume more than what was really their due I am not so much coâ—cerned at present It is sufficient that what was assumed by them was not sufficient either directly or by any necessary consequence to put it in their power to deprive our Bishops of their Spiritual Authority § XV. HOWEVER though hitherto they did not yet at length our Legislators of those times did advance the Supremacy as high as Archbishop Cranmer ' s Principles would warrant them But it was not before the later end of that Sacrilegious Reign In the seven and thirtieth year of it there was a scruple started concerning the Lay Doctors of the Civil Law by whom the Discipline of the Ecclesiastical Courts was managed after the death of Cromwell on account of their being Lay-men whether the Spiritual Censures issued out by such could have any effect with regard to Conscience This scruple being raised on that account of their being Lay-men was conceived by the Parliament by manifest consequence to affect the Kings Power also for such Censures because he also was a Lay-man This could not have been if they had not intended to assert such a Right in the King though a Lay-man even for Spiritual Censures For had they intended no more than that the King by his Lay Power should only oblige Spiritual Persons to do their duty in exerting that Spiritual Power which they had received not from him but from God himself in this case the consequence objected against the Supremacy had been out of doors and that which had signified nothing would have needed no remedy When therefore to prevent this consequence they assert the Supremacy in such a Sense as may qualifie the King though a Lay-man to a Right to inflict such Censures they must consequently mean it so as to assert this Right to him as a Supream Magistrate though not invested with any Power from God distinct from that of the Sword Accordingly they tell us that his most royal Majesty is and hath always justly been by the Word of God Supream Head in the Earth of the Church of England and hath full Power and Authority to correct punish and repress all manner of Heresies Errors Vices Sins Abuses Idolatries Hypocrisies and Superstitions sprung and growing within the same and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction They tell us withal the occasion of this Objection That though the Decrees and Constitutions by which the exercise of Spiritual Jurisdiction had been confined to Holy Orders had been utterly abolished by the Act of the five and twentieth year of this same Reign yet because the contrary is not used nor put in practise by the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it addeth or at least may give occasion to some evil disposed Persons to think and little to regard the Proceedings and Censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vicegegerent Officials Commissaries Judges and Visitors being also Lay and married men to be of little or none effect or force And Forasmuch as your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head of the Church of England and also of Ireland to whom by Holy Scripture all Authority and Power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct all Vice and Sin whatsoever and to all such Persons as your Majesty shall appoint thereunto Therefore it is enacted that Doctors of the Civil Law though Lay and married being put in office by any one having Authority under the King his Heirs and Successors may lawfully execute all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and all Censures and Coercions appertaining or in any wise belonging unto the same Here the Bishops are denied to have any manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from the Prince Here all Authority and Power is said to be wholly given him to hear and determine all manner Causes Ecclesiastical Here he is said by the Word of God to have full Power and Authority to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And all this is asserted as their Sense of the Title of Head and of the Prerogative of Supremacy If so the Bishops can have no Power but what is derived from the Lay Magistrate for all this is challenged to him as he is a Lay-man and therefore none but what must be supposed deprivable by him Then after their deprivation their Character is gone
and all their Power as Bishops of the Catholick Church is gone and all they do after the Lay Magistrate has deprived them will be perfect Nullities till they be again confirmed by Power derived from the Civil Magistrates This Hypothesis supposing the Legality of the Civil Power will indeed serve our Adversaries designs to the full But it is as notoriously false as it is notoriously true that there was even in the Apostles time a Discipline exercised independent on the Civil Magistrate And our Adversaries dare not stand by it § XVI THIS extravagant Notion of the Supremacy continued through the next Reign of King Edward the VI. Not only as that same Act continued still unrepealed but as the same Practice which supposed it continued and as no better Explication of the Supremacy was substituted in stead of it Now it was that Archbishop Cranmer took out his new Commission from the King for his Archbishoprick in the style formerly used by Bishop Bonner perfectly adapted to his own singular Opinion Now it was that the Bishop of Worcester took out the like Commission in the very beginning of this Reign Though Bishop Burnet observes that no such form was imposed on Bishop Ridley nor on Bishop Thirlby who were consecrated in the year 1550. In that same year it was that the young King himself expresses his own Opinion in these words But as for Discipline I would wish no Authority given generally to all Bishops but that Commission be given to those that be of the best sort of them to exercise it in their Dioceses By which we may easily understand that Bishop Ridley who did put out Injunctions had singular favour shewn him in that he was permitted to do so So that no general Inferences are to be gathered from his Case Yet even he and such as he were to Act by Commission which is perfectly consistent with the Hypothesis that was so destructive of the Churches Authority The only difference between him and others was that he was to hold his Authority for Life they only during the Princes pleasure But for proving the sense of the Law-makers of those times I rather chuse to insist on the expressions of the Laws themselves And those are very home to this purpose In the Statute 1 Edw. VI. c. 2. They say that all Authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland They therefore enact that all Processes Ecclesiastical should run in the King's name only that the Teste should be in the name of the Archbishop Bishop or other having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction who hath the Commission and grant of the Authority Ecclesiastical immediately from the Kings Highness They add withal that the Seal of Jurisdiction was to have the Kings Arms on it as an Acknowledgment from whom the Jurisdiction was derived There are indeed some exceptions in that same Act wherein the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops are allowed to use their own Seals But considering that the reasons given for their using the King's Arms are general such as extend to all Archbishops and all Spiritual Jurisdictions whatsoever those exceptions cannot argue any independence of the Spiritual Jurisdiction even in the Cases so excepted The Archbishop had a liberty of using his own Seal in Cases of smaller consequence which were not likely to be exempted from the Secular Power when the greater were not and in Dispensations to be granted to the King himself where though the Power had been in general originally derived from the King yet it had not been decent in the Dispensation it self to express its being so For that had been to the same purpose as if the King by his own Authority had dispensed with himself Yet the Power might have been derived from him as that of our ordinary Judges is when they give Sentence against the King in favour of a Subject by virtue of their Commission from the Crown empowering them to do so And the Cases wherein other Bishops are there allowed to use their own Seals are only such wherein their own inferiors are concerned who derive their Power from them which is very consistent with their own deriving their Power from the King Especially when this liberty is granted them by that very Power which pretended to be the Original of all their Episcopal Spiritual Power I mention not now the several Acts sufficiently frequent in this Reign requiring Clergymen to admit to Communion and empowering them to punish by Spiritual Censures though these do also proceed on the same supposal when they are not in execution of Canons made before by Ecclesiastical Authority that even such Spiritual Authority is originally vested in the Lay Magistrate For my design at present is not to enquire how far the Lay Power even the Legislative Power has encroached on the Rights of the Clergy actually but how far they have declared their encroachments included in the Sense of the Supremacy for maintenance of which the Oath was made and which must therefore be maintained by them who would then take the Oath veraciously according to the true meaning of the Legislators But what I have insisted on from this Act shews the Legislators sense of the Supremacy it self § XVII YET though this impious notion of the Supremacy was continued in the Reign of this excellent Prince who did not live to that maturity of his own Judgment that might otherwise have enabled him to have seen the falshood and all tendency of these ill Principles which had been instilled into him by his Godfather who was always the most forward promoter of them yet they were first introduced in the Sacrilegious Reign of King Henry the VIII And why should any Posterity have regard for such an Age as that was which had themselves so little for all the Acts of their own Ancestors Why should any who regard Religion have any for them who brought in principles so destructive to all Religion and to the very Fundamentals of the Church as it is a Society and a Communion Atheists themselves who have no concern for the Truth of Religion yet cannot chuse but be concerned for the security Religion gives them in their present enjoyments by the Opinions of those who do in earnest believe it true and for the restraint it lays on such not to molest them in their possessions of what they are Legally intituled to when it is otherwise in their Power forcibly to dispossess them That wicked generation broke even this security All that could have been done had been done by their Ancestors for the security of Magna Charta and the Rights of the Clergy concerned in it as the first and sacredest part of it It had been confirmed by solemn and frequently repeated grants of all the Parties who had a Right to confirm it Not only so but all the Obligations for observing it were laid on their
given formerly that their favours might not be perverted against the Interests of the Lay Power by which they had been originally granted Thus it appears had than Acts of Parliament were really true concerning all the Jurisdiction of the Spiritual Courts concerning the seculars annexed to Spirituals And even in the Spiritual Causes in which the Spiritual Judges had a Right Antecedently to the grants of Princes yet the Right of punishing refractory Persons with Temporal Coercions was the Prince's and truly derived from the grants of the Lay Magistrates So that indeed all Parts of the Spiritual Jurisdiction had some thing of Original Secular Right and therefore resumable by Princes so far as they should judge it necessary for their own Preservation And so far it was necessary to resume it and justifiable too as it was necessary for reducing Spiritual Persons to their Original due Subjection in Temporals for which the Temporals annexed to Spirituals were abundantly sufficient For this would perfectly reduce them to the same subjection under which they were before those favours were granted by the Secular Magistrate And more than that he cannot justly challenge as his due These therefore are the only Spiritual Causes that can be meant in the Oath by this explication of Queen Elizabeth and will in some sense reach all Spiritual Jurisdiction and all Spiritual Causes as there was a mixture of both Powers in the Proceedings of the Spiritual Courts of those times And this is the Explication of the word Spiritual given as I remember by Sir John Davyes in Lalor ' s Case But this will not justifie the Magistrates assuming what never belonged to him his intermeddling with matters of Faith and with Crimes not barely as Crimes injurious to the State but as Scandals to our Religion Much less will it justifie his presuming to give Commissions for inflicting Spiritual Censures From the belief of the allowableness of these things the Queens Explication will fully discharge us Yet without these things he can never pretend to a Power of depriving our Bishops of their Spiritual Power nor of absolving us from our duty to them as over us in the Lord. § XXII NOR is there any reason to doubt of the sufficiency of this Explication of the Queen for satisfying our Consciences in this Age as well as in that wherein these Injunctions were first set forth I am very well aware of the pretences of the violent Party concerning the Canons of 1640. which yet our ablest and most impartial Lawyers think to be still in force Indeed the whole Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals has been by all the Acts made in favour of it vested in the King without the least mention of the Secular States And accordingly the Prince ' s Act in such affairs has been always thought sufficient for giving Authority to them without any confirmation in Parliament And that not only for his own time but for ever till a Revocation of it by the same Power by which it was established Who doubts but the XXXIX Articles and the Canons made in year MDCIII are still good Ecclesiastical Law Yet what Authority have they to make them so besides the Regal confirmation of Queen Elizabeth for the former and of King James the I. for the later Nor was it counted material for this purpose whether any Parliament was sitting or not when the Prince was pleased to ratifie such Ecclesiastical proceedings Indeed I see no reason why it should be counted necessary that a Parliament should be at the same time when the Parliament was not necessary for their confirmation The Act for the Kings Authority in confirming Constitutions Ecclesiastical 25 Hen. VIII 19. requires no more confirmation than that of the King And King James the I. grounds his confirmation of the Canons on that Act which yet none thinks extinguished with his Person There might have been more pretended for the necessity of a Parliament sitting at the same time with the Convocation antiently than can be now Then the Clergy acted Parliamentarily and had their Members in both Houses Yet not so but that even then we have had several Synods distinct from the Parliament Now the Convocation even in Parliament time is notwithstanding a distinct Body and a distinct Assembly from it since the Clergy have been excluded from the lower House and the Bishops sit in the upper House rather on account of their Baronies than their Spiritual Jurisdiction And their meeting and acting wholly depends on the Pleasure of the Prince and is not confined to Parliament times in the Act now mentioned I see not therefore why the Injunctions may not be counted Ecclesiastical Law still on the account of the Regal Authority by which they were set forth and why the explication given in them of the Oath of Supremacy may not still be allowed as a good Authority If it be requisite that the Oath have a certain Sense the Explication of the Oath cannot be esteemed a more temporary thing than the Oath it self is This at least will be reasonable that this Sense be taken for the true Sense of the Oath till it be contradicted and another substituted instead of it by the same Authority § XXIII AND yet though this should not hold we have all the confirmation of this Particular of the Injunctions that we need desire The grant of the Supremacy to the King in the Act now mentioned under Henry the VIII was grounded on the surrendry of the Clergy as appears from the Preamble of the Act it self What therefore was surrendred by the Clergy that same was the power that by the Act was vested in the Crown But concerning the Sense of the surrendry none can be supposed more competent Witnesses than the Body by which the surrendry was made Especially when the Act by which the Oath is explained by the Clergy is not only allowed but Authorized by the Regal power to which the surrendry was made Upon this account we we have reason to believe the Explication so given to be the sense of both parties concerned in the surrendry and to be as well accepted by the Prince as given by the Clergy which should alone be sufficient to satisfy all the reasonable Scruples that can be in this matter At least the Judgment of our Church must needs be satisfactory and a sufficient Authority to explain her own sense in this matter and to shew what liberty may be allowed a Member of our Church in it consistently with the principles of his Communion and his pretentions of being a Member of it and withall how other Acts of the same Church are to be interpreted And the sense of our Church of England both concerning the Oath and the now-mentioned Injunction is manifest in her xxxviith Article So she there teaches us Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some dangerous folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring
particulars of it were that our Church does not tell us here Yet without an enumeration of particulars none can tell what particulars were intended But these are rather to be judged of by other passages where the same Church tells us what that Authority was which she thought the Godly Kings had amongst the Jews This she her self tells us expresly in the Article She there tells us that the only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself 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 Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers If this Right of ruling the Ecclesiasticks be all that is asserted to the Prince by the Supremacy in Spirituals and that very ruling be only a restraining them with the Civil Sword these two things are so very exactly agreeable to our Doctrine that we can by no means be concerned in the censures mentioned in the Canon I might withall mention what I have already insisted on the approbation of the Explication in the Injunction in the same Article by which we are excused from believing that the Lay Magistrate has any Right to deprive Bishops of their Spiritual Power or from believing any thing from whence that may be solidly inferred For why should we not interprete the sense of our Church of England in her Canons by her sense in her Articles Why should we suspect she meant to Excommunicate her Members by her Canons where no particulars are expressed for particularly disowning that extent of secular Authority in Spirituals which in her Articles where she states the Question and tells us what she takes to be the Rights of Princes as expressed in the Scriptures she does not mention as a Right of the Jewish Kings nor consequently of our own We deny not our Kings a Right of driving Bishops away by the Civil Sword if no more be insisted on from the Case of Solomon and Abiathar And no more can be pretended to be the Right of our Kings by this Explication in the Article This is in truth an antient Right of the Supream Power even before it was Christian. The Emperor Aurelian had it though then a Pagan and afterwards a Persecutor and practised it with the approbation of the Primitive Church against Samosatenus Exile and imprisonment and confinement to a certain place such as that was of Abiathar to Anathoth we grant to be Temporal Punishments in the Power and Right of him whoever he be who has the Right of managing the Civil Sword But it is very plain by this Interpretation of the Queens Injunction allowed in this Article that our Church did not oblige to the rigour of some mens private opinions and particularly not to these of Archbishop Cranmer concerning the dependence of the Sacordotal Power on the Prince And therefore though there have been those who from that Case of Abiathar have inferred the deprivableness of the Episcopal Power by the Lay Magistrate there is no reason to believe that ever our Church in that Canon intended to exclude all such from Communion who could not come up to the heights of these private Oâ—â—â—ators The rather this is credible because I have already shewn that even in the times of King Henry the VIII and of King Edward the VI. when these Opinions were believed by the Legislators themselves they notwithstanding had not the confidence to impose them How much less were they likely to 〈◊〉 under King James the 〈◊〉 when these Opinions were generally disbelieved I am sure those Fathers who made those Canons could not with the least likelihood pretend that in those Times of the Primitive Church when the first Christian Emperors governed this Opinion was believed that all Spiritual Power was derived from the Emperor and was therefore deprivable by him Yet if they did not they could not give this Right of depriving Bishops of their Spiritual Power to our Kings considering that in this very same Canon they do not pretend to give our Kings any other Rights than what were owned in the first Christian Emperors by the Primitive Christians § XXVI WELL. But however our Adversaries think that the sense of the Legislators as explained by the Practise is against us that Laymen have been permitted the use of Spiritual Censures Such was that Case of Cromwell Such that of the Lay Civilians still permitted by the Spiritual Courts and defended by the Act of Parliament Such the late Commission Court empowered to suspend and deprive the Bishop of London consisting of Laicks mixt with Ecclesiasticks and a Lay President But Facts alone do by no means signifie the mind of the Legislators unless they be approved and agreeable to Principles Much less can they pretend to be Rules in Conscience to the Obedience of the Subjects For Princes do many things upon exigencies of state which even themselves do not approve when they are free from those exigencies So far they would be even themselves from imposing them generally on their Subjects Consciences And the Facts we are speaking of have been so rare and discontinued that even that is suffiâ—ient to shew that even the Princes themselves have done them unwillingly and with regret and under the necessity of those very exigencies I need not repeat what I have already observed to this purpose in the Reigns of King Henry the VIII and King Edward the VI. As for the Commission Court it is no wonder if King James the II. took the utmost liberty that Protestant Lawyers allowed as Law It is rather to be admir'd that Protestant Lawyers should help him to an Expedient so hurtful to their own Communion and that upon such slender grounds as a few Facts which they were pleased upon so little probability to allow as Precedents The Bishop of London then when it was his own case did not think the Laymen his competent Judges in order to his suspension or deprivation from Spirituals And those Lawyers who had so much zeal not as to pervert them but keep them equal and unbiassed between both extreams did think his Plea not only equitable in conscience but warrantable in Law It were well his Lordship and those Lawyers would recollect how applicable those things are to our present case which themselves so zealously defended then As for the Act in favour of the Lay Civilians it self complains of the rareness of such Examples then because of the averseness of the Bishops to imploy such persons on such affairs That is sufficient to shew how much it was even then against the sense of the Ecclesiasticks who were the only competent Judges of Right in matters of this nature with regard to Conscience Since that time it has been still more disagreeable though the Practice has continued on account of that Act in favour of it Yet it has furnished the Non-conformists with an Objection and that such an one
could hinder the Bishops and the People too who were rightly informed concerning the nature of the Spiritual Society from judging Consecration necessary for obtaining that Power which is purely Spiritual And it 's being thought necessary by the Bishops was enough to oblige the Consecrating Bishops to give and the Consecrated Bishops to receive that Spiritual Power which in their Opinion could not be had otherwise then by their Consecration And intending to give and receive it what could hinder their Intentions from the usual Success when the same Solemnities were used by Persons equally Authorized to give it with those who had been used to give it formerly Nor could the Magistrate expect that to gratify him they shou'd defraud themselves of any Priviledges or Powers received by their Ancestors and convey'd as before from Persons empower'd to administer the Solemnities and Rites of Consecration Such a Singular obsequiousness and self-denial is this He could not I say either in Conscience or Equity pretend to expect unless He had secur'd it in express Terms and exacted a particular Profession a Profession that might make it inconsistent with the Bishops Veracity to give or receive the usuall Power as by the same Solemnities and Authority it had been given and received by their Ancestors Rather on the contrary the Permission of the samâ— Solemn Rites and the same Authority in administring them as before without any new Security against the usual effect is an Argument the Prince left it to their Liberty to intend the giving and receiving the same Spiritual Power from CHRIST as had been usually conveyed by the same Ministry He therefore contented him self with the Security given him by the Patents that from whomsoever they received the Right of being Bishops in regard to Conscience yet they should not be Bishops in Law intitled to Baronies and revenues any longer than he pleased This being so it will follow that what they did before Deprivation was valid in Conscience and in Law also but what they did afterwards though that might also be valid in Concsience yet it was not to be vaild in Law Our first Consecrations were of the former sort and therefore were not the less valid in Conscience for having the accession of a validity in Law Thus our first Consecrations might derive a Title to our Present Fathers in Conscience not deprivable at the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate with regard to Conscience GOD awaken the zeal of our late Fathers and Brethern for asserting these Rights in Conscience which are so essential to their being our Fathers and our Brethren and for the Religion and Communion of our late common Churches in these Kingdoms And may our common LORD plead the Cause of his distressed and deserted Spouse THE END The Independency of Bishops on the Sate pretended to be contrary to the Oath of Supremacy * Injunct Q. Eliz. An. 1559. 5 †Eliz. 1. In App. to Bishop Burnet's 〈◊〉 of Refor And contrary to the Principles on which the Popish Bishops were deprived and our present Succession depends The Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greater than that of any modern particular one * P. 14. †Defence of the Church of England p. 20 21 22. Even with regard to our particular Church our behaviour signifies more love and concern for her than that of our late Brethren does We shew our greater 〈◊〉 to our Church particularly in not yielding so 〈◊〉 as they do that she should lose bee Rights on any terms What we do is perfectly consistent with the Authorized explication of the Supremacy vested in the King Arch-â—p Cranmers Opinions in 〈◊〉 cury the VIII and Edw. the VI. time perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authoâ—â—â— See those Papers published by Bishop Stallingfleet Iren. c. ult and by Bishop Burnet Hist. of Resor Part. I. Collect. n. XXI B. III. Part II. Collect. Num. 2. Archbishâ—p Câ—â—â—mer's Au 〈…〉 〈◊〉 these matter noâ— at all Vol. I. Book III p. 267. It is not for the Interest of the Church or the Reformation that his Authority iâ— these things should be regarded Part. I. B. III. p. 204. Part. II. B. II. p. 243. His Opinions in this matter no more agreeable to the sense of our present Adversaries than to ours P. I. B. III. p. 267. The Supremacy and Title of Head when first assumed by Henry the VIII consistent with our Doctrine 24 Hen. VIII 12. When the King gave the encroaching Commission to Cr 〈…〉 it was not 〈◊〉 â—greeable to the tru 〈…〉 of the Legis 〈…〉 Vol. I. B. III. R. 278. The Appeal allowed from the Archbishops to the Kings Commissioners in Chancery no Argument of any Spiritual Power derived from the King 25 H. VIII 10. The Supremacy explained 26 H. VIII 1. not contrary to our Doctrine in this Cause Addend to the First Vol. Num. V. The 〈◊〉 as explained in 37 H. VIII 17. full to our Adversaries purpose and the sense of Archbishop Cranmer 25 II. VIII 〈◊〉 19. The same Notion of the Supremacy continued also under King Edw. the VI. Bishop Burnet Vol. II. Col. B. II. The Kings Re 〈…〉 Pap. 2. King Henry the VIIIths Reign by no means to be allowed for an Age of Precedents Queen Elizabeth explained the Supremacy in a Sense conâ—stent with our Principles Bishop Burnet p. 11. B. 111. Col. num 2. 1 Eliz. 1. Injunct by Queen Esâ—z Edition by Bishop Sparrow p. 77. 78. That Explication discharges'us now from any obligation to believe Archbishop Cranmer's Principles Resor Leg. Eccl. de Excom c. 2. De offic Jurisd omn. Judic What the Queen requires we can sincerely undertake and in a sense fully answering the Imposition of the Legislators â—he Queen's Injunction excuses us from swearing to the Supremacy over Spiriritual Persons in Causes purely Spiritual This Injunction of Queen Elizabeth still in force The Explication in the Injunctions authorized by our Church in her XXXVIIth Article The same Explication of the Injunctions confirmed also by Act of Parliament 5 Elizab. 1. It is rather supposed than contradicted by the second Canon The Practise of the Supremacy to our times no argument of the imposed sense of the Legislators against us Can. 12â— The Objection proposed that our present Protestant Succession seems to depend on the validity of the Deprivation of the last Popish Bishops which was no other than Laical The Lay Deprivations of those Popish Bishops who took out Lay Commissions for their Episcopal Power does not by any just consequence affect our present Case Vid. Specimen against Bishop Burnet p. 52 53. The Popish Bishops were of another Communion And therefore needed no other Deprivation than that of the Lay Magistrate This Doctrine agreeable exactly to the Sense and Practise of Antiquity If the Popish Bishops had had a better Title yet that could not have illegitimated Successors any longer than their own Lives If the Popish Bishops then had the better Title yet their discontinuance of their Succession has made their Title worse now 〈◊〉 Settle 〈…〉 give Right â—â—ere no better â—iâ—ht is injured by them This is proved from the Donatist and Luciferian Disputes Opt. Milev cont Parmenian L. 1. Artem. Onâ—ir 〈◊〉 1. c. 14 Adv. Euciferian They who took out Lay-Commissions for their Episcopal Power might yet keep their better Title Part. II. §. LV. p. 133. Ib. p. 131.