tribus Thomis in Thoma Cant. What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurp'd viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England and again what was this but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects So that according to this Author Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Popes Encroachments viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edv. 3. Stat. de provisoribus 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1. 2. 4. stat 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6. 8. 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19. concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all forreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Iurisdictions of the same Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiasticall Where 1st As to the title of Head of the Church we find that King Edgar was reputed and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum the Vicar of Christ and by his Laws and Canons assur'd the world he did not in vain assume those titles That our Forefathers stil'd their Kings Patrons Defenders Governours Tutors and Protectors of the Church And the King's Regimen of the Church is thus exprest by King Edward the Confessor in his laws Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut reâ—num terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriâ—sis deâ—endat Leg. Edv. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a priviledge delegated by him what he claim'd as a right deriv'd immediately from God To you saith that Pope to the Confessor and your Successours the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power They challenge from S t. Peter himself to be Supreme and from S t. Paul that every Soul should be subject to them And the extent of their Regal power may be learn'd from S t. Austin who teaches us that the Divine right of Kings as such authorizeth them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion In pursuance of which 2ly As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy namely the Keyes of Order and Jurisdiction so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices is evident to any one who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant A Collection of the Laws made by Ina Alfred Edward Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Ethelred Canutus and others we have publish'd by Mr. Lambard in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith Baptism Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops Priests Marriage Observance of Lent appointing of Festivals and the like And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Autority which our Editor cannot justly decline I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Publish'd in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford in the Name of the Alumni of that Society This Author speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical makes this Inference from them These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation because from them it is evident that the Saxon Kings Alfred and Edward were of Opinion that they had a Supremacy as well over Ecclesiastical persons as Lay-men and that the Church which was within their Dominions was not out of their Jurisdiction or subject to a forreign Power and exempted from the Laws of the Countrey as Becket Anselm and others afterwards fiercely contended And again From his King Alfred's laws it is evident either that the Roman Supremacy was not yet risen to that heighth as in after Ages so as to lessen the Jurisdiction of Christian Princes or if it was yet that King Alfred did not so far subject himself to it Nay so far was King Alfred from paying any such Subjection that we are told He found out a way to ruine and destroy that Universal Empire which the Romanists in those dark Ages had newly founded and were hastning to finish Which is spoken in reference to his restoring the second Commandment expung'd out of the Decalogue of which thus that Author And here it may not be pass'd over that in reciting the Decalogue the second Commandment concerning the not making of graven Images was according to the use of the 2d Nicene Council which was celebrated an 100 Years before in its place omitted But that this defect might be supplied out of the context of the Holy Bible after that which we call the Tenth Commandment another was added to complete the just Number in these words Thou shalt not make to thy self any Gods of Gold Which being added by the King himself as it doth argue the Church to have been corrupt in her Doctrine so it is a testimony of the Kings Orthodoxy From which one Instance it is plain that contrary to the pretensions of our Author King Edward the 6th was not the 1st that took upon him to Reform Liturgies for King Alfred here restores the Decalogue to its primitive Integrity to judge what is agreeable to the word of God for He supply's the defect which he finds in the Missal
from the Scriptures to judge contrary to the Determinations of the Church for the Church is here said to have been corrupt in that Doctrine in which the King was Orthodox to alter the Constitutions of General Councils because repugnant to the law of God for this Omission of the Commandment was ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni and the Worshipping of Images here forbidden was introduc'd by that Council which the Romanists acknowledge General These passages cited I take to be some of the perperam scripta which the Publisher of that life mentions in the Praeface And accordingly we find that whatsoever is advanc'd against the Papal Autority in the Text is qualified in the Comment and it is plain that King Alfred was a greater Adversary to the power of the Pope then his Alumnus the Annotator so that it is matter of surprize to find him appear in the Frontispiece of this Treatise of Church Government who was so great an Enemy to the Anti-regal designs of it 3ly As to the power of calling Synods we need no more to clear this point then the very words of the Statute by him urg'd 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. Where it is said that the Kings Humble and Obedient Subjects the Clergy of the Realm of England had acknowledg'd according to the truth that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled only by the Kings Writ Which is farther evident from the ancient from of calling and dissolving Synods by a Writ in each case directed to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as may be seen in D r. Heylin The Clergy did indeed before this act of King Henry 8th promulge and execute those Canons by their own autority which they here promise not to put in Execution without the King's consent But since no such Canons could be put in ure till made nor be made but by the Clergy assembled nor the Clergy be assembled but only by the King 's Writ this executing of Canons did in effect as much before this Statute as after depend upon the King's pleasure 4ly As for visiting Ecclesiastical persons and reforming Errors and Haeresies by proper Delegates this is a necessary consequence from the Supremacy they challeng'd Without such a Power how shall the Confessor regere Ecclesiam ab injuriosis defendere If such a Power as this be inconsistent with the Principles even of Roman-Catholiques Whence is it that we find Articles sent from Queen Mary to Bp. Bonner to be put in Execution by him and his Officers within his Diocess Whence is it that we find a Commission directed to some Bishops to deprive the Reformed Bishops But to speak of former times if our Kings had not such a Power Whence is it that in King Henry the fourth's Reign upon the Increase of Lollardy We find the Clergy thus petitioning that Prince in the Names of the Clergy and Praelates of the Kingdom of England That according to the Example of his Royal Praedecessors He would find out some remedy for the Haerefies and Innovations then praevailing Whence is it that we find a Commission from that King as Defender of the Catholick Faith to impower certain Persons to seize upon Haeretical Books and bring them before his Council and such as after Proclamation be found to hold such Opinions to be call'd and examined before two Commissioners who were of the Clergy 5thly As for Collation of Benefices Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishopricks are of the King's Foundation and that they were Originally Donative not Elective and that the full right of Investitures was in the Sovereign who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi annuli by the delivery of a Ring and Crosier Staff to the Person by him elected and Nominated for that Office. Accordingly we find in the Statute of Provisors Ed. 3. A. 28. the King call'd Advower Paramount of all Benefices which be of the Advowrie of people of Holy Church And it is there said That Elections were first granted by the King's Progenitors upon a certain form and Eondition as to demand License of the King to choose and after Election to have his Royal Assent and not in other manner That if such Conditions were not kept the thing ought in reason to resort to its first Nature Lastly as for Hindring Excommunications in foro externo It is one of the Articles of Clarendon That None that hold of the King in capite nor any of his Houshold Servants may be Excommunicated nor their Land interdicted unless our Lord the King if he be in the Kingdom be first treated with or his Iustice if he be abroad so that he may do what is Right concerning him And amongst the Articuli Cleri c. 7. It is complain'd that the King's Letters us'd to be directed to Ordinaries that have wrapt their Subjects in Sentence of Excommunication that they should assoil them by a certain day or else that they do appear and answer wherefore they excommunicated them This short account however imperfect may suffice to shew that the Regal power in Spirituals challeng'd by King Henry the 8th was not quitted by his Predecessors And if the Reader desires a more full account of these things I shall refer him to Dr. Hammond's Dispatcher Dispatch'd c. 2. Sect. 5. Bishop Brambal's just Vindication c. 4. Repl. to the Bishop of Chalcedon c. 4. Sch. guarded c. 12. Sect. 3. as also to Sr. Roger Twisden in his Historical vindication of the C. of England in point of Schism which Learned Author has by a through insight into History Law-books Registers and other Monuments of Antiquity enabled himself to give full and ample satisfaction to every unpraejudic'd Reader concerning this Subject and to convince him that this Author knew very little either of the English History or of his own Book if He knew not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which were foregone by the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth As for what he adds that no more Supremacy in such Ecclesiastical matters as are delegated by Christ to the Clergy and are unalienable by them to any Secular power can belong to the Princes of one time or of one Nation then do to any other Prince of a former Time or a diverse Nation We willingly acknowledge it since no such powers belong to any Prince at any time or of any Nation But then there is a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters delegated by God to the Prince which may be invaded by a Forreigner under a forg'd pretence of his being Head of the Church and here Secular Laws may be made for the protection of such Rights and for the punishment of those who shall either invade them or vindicate such Invasion And that person who under praetext of maintaining the Churches rights shall impugn the just Autority of his Sovereign may be more a disloyal Subject in these days when
but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn evil doers It is therefore by our Author to be prov'd that they who give no more to their Prince then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself do alienate to the Secular Governour any Autority or Office which they the Clergy have receiv'd and been charg'd with by Christ with a command to execute the same to the end of the World which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile That by this Oath or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assum'd by herself or given to her by Others then is consistent with that Autority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Autority but what was challeng'd and lately us'd by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countreys of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation sense or meaning Her Majesty is well pleas'd to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contain'd in the act therein mention'd against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath So that it 's evident from this Injunction that it 's no way here stated what Autority belongs to the Church and what to the Civil Magistrate farther then that the Queen as justly she might challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and neither did nor would challenge more but what that was is not here determin'd and she is content without such Determination if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all forreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil Another Act which He finds repugnant to his 1st Thesis is King Henry the 8th's claiming a right that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave and appointment But it is to be remembred that the Ecclesiastical Censures asserted to belong to the Clergie in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world but the censures here spoken of are such as have reference to the things of this world The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows we confess from their Ordination but the Actual exercise thereof in publick Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Autority for receiving of Appeals and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular but also from all the Clergy in general not making the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Convocation but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8. 19. c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch or Spiritual Controversies but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion of deciding what is Gods word and divine Truth what are Errors in the faith or in the practise of Gods Worship and Service nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis Or if any such Quaestions should be involv'd in the Causes to be tried Why may not the Commissioners if Secular judge according to what has been praedetermin'd by the Clergy or let us suppose a case never yet determin'd How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transfer'd on secular Persons since if Occasion requir'd the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical But not only the Acts of State and Church but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examin'd by his Test and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the stamp of Royal Autority be imprinted on them Now it is plain to any one that views the Context that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual as hath influence on their Civil rights For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Autority But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent who only has the power of inflicting them Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis had he at so great a distance remembred it which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures which have reference to things not of this but the next World. These are the Inferences which I find deduc'd from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse which had they been as conclusive as they are false yet I do not find but that his own party if that be the Roman Catholick had suffer'd most by them For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right what shall we think of that Roman Catholick Clergy who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had receiv'd from Christ what shall we think of those
as those of Preaching Ordaining Absolving c. Yet whether these are not subject to be limited inhibited or otherwise regulated in the outward Exercise of them by the Laws of the Land and the Autority Regal is the thing quaestion'd This cannot perhaps be better exprest then in the words of the Reverend Bp. Sanderson The King doth not challenge to himself as belonging to him by Virtue of his Supremacy Ecclesiastical the power of Ordaining Ministers excommunicating scandalous Offenders or doing any other act of Episcopal Office in his own Person nor the power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments or doing any other act of Ministerial Office in his own person but leaves the performance of all such acts of either sort unto such persons as the said several respective powers do of divine right belong to viz. of the one sort to the Bishops and of the other to the Priests Yet doth the King by Virtue of that Supremacy challenge a power as belonging to him in the right of his Crown to make Laws as well concerning Preaching Administring the Sacraments and other acts belonging to the Function of a Priest as concerning Ordination of Ministers proceeding in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognisance in the Spiritual Courts and other acts belonging to the Function of a Bishop to which Laws as well the Priests as the Bishops are subject and ought to submit to be limited and regulated thereby in the Exercise of those their several respective Powers their claim to a Ius Divinum and that their said several powers are of God notwithstanding Now to apply this That the deciding Controversies of Faith and Excommunicating Offenders c. are the proper Province of the Clergy we deny not but that the indicting Synods in order to such Matters or making Laws to regulate the Exercise of them are purely Spiritual is not so undoubted as He would perswade us Again that the Spiritual Autority which is to be exercised in the Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions can be derived from none but those spiritual persons who were invested with that Autority and power of delegating it to others is willingly allow'd but that collation to Benefices can be the act of none but the Clergy will not be hence infer'd For the Spiritual Autority it self and the application of it to such an Object are very different things The power by which a Clergy man is capacitated for his Function is derived from the Bishop which ordains him but the applying this Power to such a Place the ordering that the Ecclesiastical Person shall execute that Autority which he deriv'd from the Church in such a peculiar part of the Kingdom is not without the reach of the Civil Jurisdiction and therefore Collation to Benefices in the sence this Author understands it should not have been reckon'd by him amongst those things of which it is not doubted but they are purely Spirituall Another power of which he abridges the Prince and by consequence would have to be esteem'd purely Spiritual is the deposing from the Exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy for transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons Now that the Secular Prince should have an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual matters to bind them by Temporal Punishments to the Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's determinations and decrees as he words it and yet that the Exercising this power their performing what they are obliged to by God should be without the reach of their Autority seems to me a paradox That the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times challeng'd such a power is plain from the undoubted testimony of the Learned Petrus de Marca Who tells us that by the care of Christian Princes Hereticks were represt the contumacy of Bishops and Clergy-men against the Decrees of Synods punish'd and Bishops restrain'd from oppressing their subjects by the violation of the Canons If we inquire how the Princes secur'd the Keeping of the Canons He tells us they did it by these 2 Methods 1st By delegating Magistrates to see they were observ'd 2ly By punishing those who were guilty of the breach of them And he particularly mentions Deprivation inflicted by the Secular power for violation of the Canons For that they thought removal from the See within the reach of their Jurisdiction tho' not Degradation which is a punishment merely Ecclesiastical Which neither did the Reforming Princes ever think in their power to inflict And he there gives instances of Bishops so depriv'd And indeed this seems to be a Necessary branch of power which naturally flows from his being Custos Canonum which he is prov'd by this Author at large to be How far the Prince may abridge himself of this power by the laws of the Land I meddle not it suffices to shew that it is not originally a power merely Spirituall And from this and the former Instances the Reader will be able to judge the truth of that assertion That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal Come we now to that other assertion of his That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed States do forego to exercise Now if by the chiefest which he excepts he means preaching the word and administring the Sacraments Excommunicating and absolving neither do the Reformed States challenge the Exercise of these and as for others it will appear that the Princes of the Roman-Catholick Communion extend their Supermacy as far as the Reformed And here it may not be improper to instance in that right which the Kings of Spain enjoy in Sicily which seems to extend even to those Spiritual powers which our Author calls the chiefest And this I find usher'd in by a Roman-Catholick Writer with an assertion quite opposite to that which is laid down in this Epistle It even surpasses saith he that which Henry the Eighth of England boldly took when he separated from the Church of Rome The King of Spain as King of Sicily pretends to be Legate à latere and born Legate of the H. See so that he and his Viceroys in his absence have the same power over the Sicilians as to the Spiritual that a Legate à latere could have And therefore they who execute that Jurisdiction of Sicily for the King of Spain have power to absolve punish and excommunicate all sorts of persons whether Laicks or Ecclesiasticks Monks Priests Abbots Bishops and even Cardinals themselves that reside in the Kingdom They acknowledge not the Popes Autority being Sovereign Monarchs as to the Spiritual They confess that the Pope hath heretofore given them that priviledge So that his Holiness it seemes thought even those chiefest Powers of the Church alienable but at the same time they pretend that it is not in his power to
erected so they may be dissolv'd by the Prudence of Men that as they were erected by leave and confirmation of Princes so they may be dissolv'd by the same that the Bishop of Romes Patriarchate doth not extend beyond the sub-urbicary Churches that we are without the reach of his Jurisdiction and therefore that the power claim'd over us is an Invasion that did not Popes think fit to dispence with themselves for Perjury having sworn to keep inviolably the Decrees of the Eight first General Councils they would not in plain opposition to the Nicene and Ephesine Canons pretend to any Jurisdiction over us That they so invading ought to be judg'd by a free Oecumenical Synod if such an one could be had but that this Remedy being praecluded us Each National Church has liberty to free her self from such Usurpation that the Church of England pleads the benefit of this Right and her Sovereigns having power to transfer Bishopricks might remove the Patriarchate from Rome to Canterbury and justly exclude any forreign Praelate from Jurisdiction within their Territories But that the power claim'd by the Pope however mollified by the Novices of that Church is more then Patriarchal and that it is not our Rule which this Author so much dislikes but Pope Leo's the 1st that propria perdit qui indebita concupiscit This plea of a Western Patriarchate is fatally confounded by that one plain Period of Bishop Bilson As for his Patriarchate by God's law he hath none in this Realm for Six Hundred years after Christ he had none for the last 6 Hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none Above or against the Princes Sword he can have none to the subversion of the Faith and Oppression of his Brethren he ought to have none He must seek farther for Subjection to his Tribunal this land oweth him none So much for the first branch of this Thesis the 2d is that as the Prince cannot eject or depose the Clergy so neither can be introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceas'd without the concurrence of the Clergy If by the concurrence of the Clergy he means that the Person assign'd by the Prince to any sacred office cannot execute it till he be ordain'd by the Clergy No one will deny it Or if he think that the Ordainer ought to lay hands on none but whom he esteems fit for the discharge of so sacred an Office here also we agree with him But how doth it follow that because Ordination which is consecrating Men to the work of the Holy Ministry is the proper Office of the Clergy the Prince may not recommend to the Church a fit Person so to be consecrated or assign to the Person already consecrated the place where he shall perform that Holy Work As for the Canons by him alledg'd they being Humane Institutions are not of AEternal Obligation but changeable according to the different State of the Church If the 31st Apostolick Canon which excommunicates all who gain Benefices by the Interest of Secular Princes and forbids the People to communicate with them still oblige then we are exempted from Communion with the Bishop of Rome How comes the latter part of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which concerns the Election of Bishops still to be valid and the former part which limits the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs so long since to be null Why must the C. of England accept the 2d Nicene Council in matters of Discipline which the Gallican Church rejected in matters of Faith Were the Canon of the Laodicean Council here cited pertinent to the purpose as it is not it being directed only against popular Elections yet why must that be indispensable when another Canon which enumerates the Canonical books of Scripture has so little Autority It is plain the manners of Elections have varied much in the divers States of the Church The Apostles and Apostolical Persons nominated their Successors afterwards Bishops were chose by the Clergy and the people after by the Bishops of the Province the Metropolitan ratifying the choice In process of time Emperors when become Christian interpos'd and constituted and confirm'd even Popes themselves Nor is this Power of Princes repugnant to Holy Scripture in which we find that King Solomon put Zadok the Priest in the Room of Abiathar That Jehosaphat set Amariah the Chief-Priest over the People in all matters of the Lord That He set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chief Fathers of Israel for the Iudgment of the Lord and for Controversies As for his alledg'd Inconvenience that if temporal Governors can place and displace the Clergy they will make the Churches Synods to state divine matters according to their own minds and so the Church will not be praeserv'd incorrupt in her Doctrine and Discipline They who maintain the just rights of the Prince are not obliged to defend the abuse of them there is perhaps no power ordain'd for our good which may not be perverted to mischief were this right of placing and displacing left to a Patriarch or a Synod yet either of these might so manage their trust that a corrupted majority of Clergy might state divine matters according to their own minds and so the Doctrines of Christ be chang'd for the Traditions of men But to these objected Injuries which the Church may suffer from a bad Prince we ought to oppose the benefit she receives from the Protection of a good one Nor is it more true that Constantius an Arrian by his unjustly displacing the Orthodox Bishops procur'd Arrianism to be voted in several Eastern Synods then that the succeeding Emperors by justly displacing the Arrian Bishops procur'd the Nicene Faith to be receiv'd in succeeding Synods But for these mischiefs which a National Synod is liable to our Author has found out as he thinks a Remedy in his Fourth Thesis That a Provincial or National Synod may not lawfully make any difinitions in matters of Faith or in reforming some Error or Heresy or other abuse in God's Service contrary to the Decrees of former Superior Synods or contrary to the judgment of the Church Vniversal of the present Age Shew'd in her publick Liturgies But there is a Thesis in our Bibles which seems to me the very contradictory of this For saith the Prophet expresly Though Israel transgress yet let not Iudah Sin. Tho' ten tribes continue corrupted in their Faith yet let the remaining Tribe take care to reform her self For that Iudah had sinned and consequently was here commanded to reform is plain from the words of Scripture where it is said that Iudah kept not the Commandments of the Lord her God but walk'd in the Statutes of Israel which they made But this argument of National Councils reforming without the leave of General has been manag'd with so great Learning and Demonstration by Arch-Bishop Laud in his Discourse with Fisher and his
Lordship's Arguments so clearly vindicated by the Reverend D. Stillingfleet that as it is great Praesumption in this Author to offer any thing in a cause which has had the Honour to have suffer'd under those Pens so neither would it be modest in me to meddle any farther in a Controversie by them exhausted I shall therefore proceed to his Fifth Thesis That could a National Synod make such Definitions yet that a Synod wanting part of the National Clergy unjustly depos'd or restrained and consisting partly of persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first threatned with Fines Imprisonment and deprivation in case of their Non-conformity to the Princes Injunctions in matters purely Spiritual is not to be accounted a lawful National Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such Regal Injunctions Now how this is pertinent to our case I can by no means conjecture For it has been shew'd that neither were the Anti-reforming Bps. unjustly depos'd nor the Reformers unjustly introduc'd But what he means by the Clergy's being threatned with fines imprisonment and Deprivation in case of their Non-conformity to the Prince's Injunctions may be learnt from another passage in his Discourse where he tells us that the Clergy being condemn'd in the Kings Bench in a Praemunire for acknowledging the Cardinal's power Legantine and so become liable at the King's pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and Confiscation of their Estates did to release themselves of this Praemunire give the King the title of Ecclesiae Cleri Anglicani Protector Supremum caput Which Act saith he so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledges It is easie to believe that Nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it But here we have great reason to complain of the unpardonable praevarication of this Author in so foully misrepraesenting Dr. Hammond Which that it may be the more perspicuous and that the Reader may make from this Instance a true judgment of this Writer's sincerity it will be necessary to transcribe the whole passage as it lies in the Doctor Though the first act of the Clergy in this was so introduc'd that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurr'd by them could probably have inclin'd them to it and therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an Act of their first will and choice but that which the Necessity of affairs recommended to them Yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a Synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both Houses of Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess their fear being the Occasion of their Debates but the Reasons and Arguments observ'd in debate the causes as in all Charity we are to judge of their Decision Thus the Doctor Now this Prevarication is the more culpable because it is not an Original but copied from Mr. Sergeant whom this Writer cannot but be praesumed to have known to have falsified it For Bishop Bramhal in whose writings we find him very conversant had detected this mis-quotation in Mr. Sergeant and severely Reprimands him for it His words are so applicable to our Author that I cannot excuse my self the Omission of them He citeth half a passage out of Dr. Hammond but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong Dr. Hammond speaketh only of the first Preparatory Act which occasion'd them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodical way he applieth it to the subsequent Act of renunciation after debate Dr. Hammond speaketh of no fear but the fear of the Law the Law of Praemunire an Ancient Law made many ages before Henry the 8th was born the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Usurpations of the Court of Rome but Mr. Sergeant mis-applieth it wholly to the fear of the King 's violent cruelty Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammond's sense express'd clearly by himself that there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess the fear being the Occasion of their debates but the reasons or Arguments offer'd in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their Decision He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously This Author must be thought to have read these passages and yet ventured the scandal of promoting this Forgery tho' without the Honor of being the first Inventor of it Such practises as these require little Controversiall skill but much fore-head and we have seen a Machine lately publickly expos'd for this laudable Quality of imbibing whatever is blown into it's Mouth and then ecchoing it forth again without blushing Whether this be not our Author's Talent let the Reader judg as also what Opinion we ought to have of his Modesty who after all this has the confidence to desire us to read together with these his Observations on the Reformation Dr. Hammond of Sch. c. 7. the very Chapter whence this is cited least saith he I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable in this Matter As for this Objection of the Clergy's being aw'd by fear in this Act he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the then Lady Mary which shews the vanity of it I am well assur'd saith She speaking of Edward VI. in her Letter to the Council that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it That could an Oecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops unjustly excluded and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first bribed with Mony and promises of Church praeferment or praeengag'd by Oaths to comply with the Vsurpations of a praetended Spiritual Monarch is not to be accounted a lawful Oecumenical Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such usurpations This is a Thesis which needs no Application I proceed to his Sixth Thesis That the Iudgment and consent of some Clergy-men of a Province when they are the lesser part cannot be call'd the judgment and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province This Assertion that a lesser part is not aequall to the Whole is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse and the Reader may hence be convinc'd that our Author doth sometimes travel in the High road of Demonstration But here we desire it may be prov'd either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy or that a minor part judging according to truth are
to restore to his Catholick Church the ancient methods and liberty of General Councils and to the Most Christian King his Honour and Dignity Now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether any Reformed States ever assumed to themselves greater Autority over the Ecclesiasticks then this R. Catholick Prince or Whether ever any Protestant exprest himself with greater warmth concerning this Council then that Protesting Embassador It might be easie to shew how much power the Venetian Republick exercises in Spirituals had not this been done so lately by another Pen. But what hath been said may suffice to evince that this Epistolographer impos'd upon the credulity of his Sir when he told him that he knew of no Ecclesiastical powers denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed State do forego to exercise But our Discourser perhaps presum'd his Friend a Stranger to sorreign affairs and therefore thought he might the more securely use a Latitude in his treating of those it remains therefore to examine whether he has been a more faithful Relator of our own History and what truth there is in his last Epistolary assertion that he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but what the Kings of England have foregone before Henry the 8th Now whatever in relation to a power in Spirituals is in this Discourse accus'd of Novâ—lty seems easily reducible to these two Heads 1st A Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical denied to the Western Patriarch as appears by our Princes taking away all manner of Forreign Jurisdiction prohibiting all appeals to the See of Rome all Bulls from it and in generall all Intercourse with it 2ly The same Supremacy invested in the Sovereign as appears by King Henry's assuming the title of Head of the Church by the Kings making Ecclesiastical Laws by that Synodical act of the Clergy not to assemble or promulgate any Canons without his leave by that power granted to the King to visit Ecclesiastical persons and to reform Errours and Heresies by his collating to Benefices without consent of the Clergy and by hindring Excommunications in foro externo Now in Answer to this charge of Novelty It is confest that the Pope did for some Years usurp such a superiority but then as it is granted that he did de facto claim such a power so that it did de jure belong to him is denied and not only so but farther we affirm that he neither from the beginning challenged such a power nor was he afterwards in so full possession of it but that our Princes have upon Occasion vindicated their own right against all Papal or if he pleaseth Patriarchal Encroachments And here waving the dispute of right I shall confine my self to matter of Fact that being the only case here controverted Where 1st of the Supremacy of the Western Patriarch That when Austin came over to convert the Saxons no such Supremacy was acknowledg'd by the British Christians is evident from the celebrated Answer of Dinoth Abbot of Bangor to Austin requiring such subjection Notum sit Vobis c. Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every good pious Christian viz. to love every one in his degree and place in perfect Charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the Sons of God and for other Obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske who is to overlook and govern us under God. This is farther manifest from the British Clergy twice refusing in full Synod after mature deliberation to own any such subjection That appeals to Rome were a thing unheard of till Anselms time appears from the application of the Bishops and Barons to him to disswade him from such an attempt telling him it was a thing unheard of in this Kingdom that any of the Peers and especially one in his station should praesume any such thing That Legates from Rome were for 1100 Years unheard of in this Kingdom we may learn from a memorable passage in the same Historian concerning the Arch-Bishop of Vienna reported to have the Legantine power over England granted him A. C. 1100 The News of which being come to England was very surprizing to all people every one knowing it was a thing unheard of that any one should have Apostolical Jurisdiction over them but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury And the event of that Legacy was suitable for as he came so he return'd being taken by no one for a Legate nor in any thing discharging the office of a Legate That the Church of Canterbury own'd no Superiour Bishop to her own but Christ appears from her being call'd Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Iesu Christi dispositione and in another place Mater omnium Anglicanarum Ecclesiarum quae suo post Deum proprio laetatur Pastore That appeals to Rome were prohibited in King Henry the 2ds time is manifest from the famous Capitula of Clarendon amongst which this is one Article If any appeals shall happen they ought to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch Bishop shall fail in doing Justice the last Address is to be made to the King. That Doctrines prejudicial to the Popes power were then publickly maintain'd appears from these Propositions amongst others censur'd by Becket 1st That none might appeal to the See Apostolick on any account without the Kings leave 2d That it might not be lawful for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop to depart the Kingdom and come at the Popes Summons without the Kings leave 3d. That no Bishop might Excommunicate any who held of the King in capite nor Interdict his Officers without the Kings leave Which propositions so censur'd are selected out of the Capitula of Clarendon to the Observation of which all the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks even Becket himself amongst the rest thoâ— afterwards falling of had oblig'd themselves by a solemn Oath acknowledging them to be the customs of the King's Predecessours to wit Henry the 1st his Grandfather and others and that they ought to be kept inviolable by all To what party the Bishops were inclin'd in these differences betwixt the King and Becket we cannot better learn then from Baronius whose severe animadversion on these Praelates whereinâ— he teaches us what Kings are to expect if they displease his Holiness and how dreadful his Fulminations be when they come out with full Apostolick vigour the Reader may peruse in the Margin A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton de