two Gommissioners who were of the Clergy * Ibid. 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 * Cokes Instit l. 3. S. 648. Accordingly we find in the Statute of Provisors Ed. 3. A. 28. the King call'd Advower Parantount 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 fore externo It is one of the Articles of Clarendom 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 Justice 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 Bramhal'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 Ep. 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 this Autority is by the Laws vindicated from Forreign Usurpation then he would have been in those days when such Usurpation was tolerated and conniv'd at Having dwelt hitherto on the Epistle and discover'd so much Insincerity in that which yet was to bespeak the Reader 's good Opinion of the ensuing Discourse We have no great reason to expect any fairer dealing in the prosecution of his design And here I shall be excus'd if I be the shorter in the Examination of his Theses both because they are such as being propos'd only and not prov'd it lies in our power to accept or reject them at pleasure as also because they have already undergone the Censure of a Noble Pen and have not been able to abide a fair Tryall Some of them are so ambiguously exprest that they may be either true or false according to the different construction they are capable of The fals-hood of others is self-evident But then for the better vending of these some truths are intermix'd according to the policy of Luther's Antagonist observ'd by his Biographer * Consid concerning Luther § 48. p. 90. Who to make his bad wares saleable diligently mixeth some small stock of good with evil so to make this more current and all easily swallow'd down together by the imprudent and credulous Another Artifice much practis'd by our Author is that he lays down his Propositions in general terms but afterwards restrains them by such limitations which if adher'd to would make them utterly disserviceable to his Cause but then when they come to be applied the Theses are refer'd to at large without any regard to such limitations Thus when in his first Thesis he has propos'd That it is not in the just power of the Prince to deny giving the Ministers of Christ license to exercise their Office §. 3. p 4. and their Ecclesiastical Censures in his Dominions He means he saith in general for he meddles not with the Prince his denying some of them to do these things whilst he admits others Now if this Restraint be observ'd then all which he would establish from this Thesis will come to Nothing For he will not I believe presume to say that the Reforming Princes ever laid a general Interdict upon all the Clergy to prohibit them the exercise of their Ecclesiastical Functions This is an Act which the Reformation detests and which we leave to the charitableness of the Universal Pastor who by Virtue of our Saviour's Command of Pasce oves challenges to himself a power of depriving the flock of all Spiritual food Thus again When in his third Thesis he has asserted that the Secular Prince cannot eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy §. 5. p. 12. nor consequently the Patriarch from any Autority which he stands possest of by Ecclesiastical Canons He restrains such Canons to those only that cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government Now he knows that all Canons which would obtrude upon us a forreign usurp'd Autority are by us pretended whether justly or not they will best judge who impartially weigh our Reasons injurious to the Civil Government Another Limitation of this Thesis is that the Civil power may judge and eject §. 8. p. 16. and disauthorize
Communion extend their Supremacy 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 * Hist of Eccl. Rev by a Learned Priest in France p. 116. 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 recall it and so they acknowledge not the Pope for head to whose Tribunal no Appeal can be made because their King has no Superiour as to the Spiritual Moreover this right of superiority is not consider'd as delegate but proper and the King of Sicily or they who hold Jurisdiction in his place and who are Lay-men take the title of Beatissimo Santissimo Padre attributing to themselves in effect in respect of Sicily what the Pope takes to himself in regard of the whole Church and they preside in Provincial Councils As for the title of Head of the Church which taken by the Reformers so much offends our Discourser this Critical Historian farther observes It was matter of great astonishment that in our age Queen Elizabeth took the title of Head of the Church of England But seeing in the Kingdom of Sicily the Female succeeds as well as in England a Princess may take the title of Head of the Church of Sicily and of Beatissimo Santissimo Padre Nay it hath happen'd so already in the time of Jean of Arragon Castile the mother of Charles the 5th So that this Critick concludes that it may be said there are two Popes and two sacred Colledges in the Church to wit the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Sicily to whom also may be added the Pope of England What Jurisdiction Spiritual the King of France challenges will best be learnt from the Liberties of the Gallican Church publish'd by the learned Pitthaeus and to be found in his Works Two of them which seem to come home to our purpose are these * Le Rois tres Chrestiens ont de tout temps selon les occurrences necessitez de leur pays assemblè ou fait assembler Synodes ou Conciles Provinciaux Nationaux esquels entre autres choses importantes à conservation de leur estat se sont aussi traitez les affaires concernans l'ordre discipline Ecclesiastique de leurs pays dont ils ont faict faire Reigles Chapitres Loix Ordonnances Pragmatiques Sanctions sous leur Nom autoritè s' en lisent encor aujourd huy phisieurs ès recueils des Decrets receus par l'Eglise Universelle aucunes approuvees par Conciciles generaux The most Christian King hath had power at all times according to the occurrences and necessity's of his own affairs to assemble or cause to be assembled Synods or Councils Provincial and National and therein to treat not only of such things as tend to the preservation of his State but also of affairs which concern the Order and Discipline of the Church in his own Dominions and therein to make Rules Chapters Laws Ordinances and Pragmatick sanctions in his own Name and by his own Autority Many of which have been received among the Decrees of the Catholique Church and some of them approv'd by General Councils * Le Pape n'envoy point en France Legates à latere avec faculte ' de reformer juger conferer dispenser telles autres qui ont accoustumè d'estre specifiees par les Bulles de leur pouvoir si non a la ' postulation du Roy tres-Christien ou de son consentement le Legat n' use de ses facultez qu' apres avoir baillè promesse au Roy par escrit sous son sein jurè par ses Sainctes Ordres de n' user desdites facultez e's Royaume pays terres Seigneuries de sa sujettion si non tant si longuement qu'il plaira au Roy que si tost que le dit Legat sera adverty de sa volonte ' au contraire il s' en desistera cessera Aussi qu' il n' usera des dites facultez si non pour le regard de celles dont il aura le consentement du Roy conformement à iceluy sans entreprendre ny faire chose au Saincts decrets Conciles generaux Franchises Libertez Privileges de L'Eglise Gallicane des Universitez estatez publiques de ce Royaume Et à cette fin se presentent les facultez de tels Legats a la Cour de Parlement ou elles sont veus examinees verifiees publiees registrees sous telles modifications que la Cour voit estre à fair pour le bien du Royaume suivant lesqnelles modifications se jugent tous les process differents qui surviennent pour raison de ce non autrement The Pope cannot send a Legat à latere into France with power to reform judge collate or dispence or do such other things which use to be specified in the Bull of his Legation except it be upon the desire or with the approbation of the most Christian King Neither can the said Legate execute his Office untill he hath promised the King in writing under his seal and sworn by his holy Orders that he will not use the said Legantine power in his Kingdom Countreys Lands and Dominions any longer then it shall please the King and that so soon as he is admonish'd of the Kings pleasure to the contrary he will cease and forbear and that whilst he doth use it it shall be no otherwise exercis'd then according to the consent of and in conformity to the King without attemping any thing to the prejudice of the Decrees of General Councils the Franchises Liberties and Priviledges of the Gallican Church and the Universities and publique Estates of the Realm And to this end they shall present the Letters of their Legation to
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 Novelty 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. * Spelm. Conc. p. 108. 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 Vske who is to overlook and govern us under God This is farther manifest from the * Spelm A. C. 601. 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 * Inauditum in regno suo esse usibus ejus omnino contrarium quemlibet de Principibus praecipue Te tale quid praesumere Eadm p. 39.30 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 * Quod per Angliam auditum in admirationem omnibus venit Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae Ead. p. 58. 41. 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 * Quapropter sicut venit ita reversus est à Nemine pro Legato susceptus uec in aliquo Legati officio functus Ibid. 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 * Ger. Dorob Coll. Hist Angl. 1663. 24. Col. 1615. 60. Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Jesu 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 tho' 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 wherein 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 * Episcopi Angliae suffraganei Sancti Thomae literis ejusdem sui Archiepiscopi Apostolica legatione fungentis exagitati resilientes haud ut par erat parere mandatis salubres admonitiones suscipere Catholicae Ecclesiae utilitati consulere vendicantes eam à miscrrima servitute studuerunt sed ex adverso oppositi pro Rege contra ipsum scriptis verbis factisque repugnant ac tantum abest ut quod eorum muneris erat ad quod suis eos
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 * Ex ipsius Alfredi legibus constat vel Suprematum ilium Romanum istis quidem temporibus nondum eo modo quo posterioribus saeculis sese extulisse scilicet ut Christiani Principes angustius regnarent vel si eatenus pertigerit non tamen eo usque se ei adjeci sse Alfred lb. 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 * Rex viam ingressus est qua universali isti Imperio quod crassis temporibus recens extruxerant Pontificii absolvere deproperarant ruinam excidium minaretur l. 3. par 98. He found out away 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 * Neque hoc sane penitus omittendum videtur quod inter Decalogum recitandum secundum quidem Praeceptum de sculptilibus non faciendis ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni ante centum annos celebrati suo loco plane praetermissum est Veruntamen ut ex ipso Sanctorum Bibliorum contextu quod deest suppleretur post decimum quod dicimus mandatum aliud insuperad justum Numerum absolvendum adjicitur Non tibi facies Deos aureos Quod cum ab ipso Rege subjungutur Ecclesiam jam turn corrupti dogmatis arguit rectae autem confessionis Regi testimonium perhibet l. 2. par 5. 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 am 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 * Errores Authoris retinuimus perperam scripta medicari potius quam tollere maluimus 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 form of calling and dissolving Synods by a Writ in each case directed to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury as may be seen in Dr. Heylin * Ref. Justif p. 1. c. 2. 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 * Quatenus inclytissimorum progenitorum antecessorum vestrorum laudabilia vestigia gratiose considerantes dignetur vestra Regia celsitudo pro conservatione dictae Ecclesiae Anglicanae ad Dei laudem c. super novitatibus excessibus praedictis in praesenti Parliamento providered de remedio opportuno Tw c. 5. par 19. That according to the Example of his Royal Predecessors He would find out some remedy for the Haeresies 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
need to meddle with any other since We never did own the Autority of any but what were so establish'd I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph §. 25.26 because what is said there is unsaid in the 26th But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark He supposes that Gardiner retracted his acknowledgment of a Regal Supremacy for this reason because by sad experience he saw it much enlarg'd beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintain'd it just § 46 But else-where this same Author will suppose that Gardiner was ensnar'd in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's and this Sense which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure § 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarg'd In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been perform'd in this Chapter We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanc'd then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme promis'd to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent and requested that the Old ones might be Reform'd The rest of his Discourse is only flourish which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been compriz'd in fewer Words and this would have heightned our Esteem of the Author tho' it might have deprest the price of the Pamphlet A Reply to his 3d Chapter § 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament Repeal'd and not Repeal'd make no difference with him All the Expressions which seem to extend the Supremacy are invidiously rak'd together and those which limit it craftily supprest The Statutes are put upon the rack and because the Text doth not speak plain enough our Author has added his Gloss He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction but restor'd the Old nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy who certainly did not delude the King with the Complement of an empty Title The extent of this Jurisdiction annex'd to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction here ascrib'd to the Prince might have been spar'd if he had attended to an easie distinction frequently met with in our Writers They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience or External that which is practis'd in exterior Courts That proceeds by Spiritual Censures this by force and corporal Punishments That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme and from him deriv'd to Ecclesiastic Governours Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annex'd to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum tho' what is urg'd thence needs no Reply that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church § 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but the Clergy too Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign Every Government has a right to dispence with it's own Acts and nothing farther is challeng'd in that Statute No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom but from the Legislative power of the Realm and the same power which gave them life might dispense with them This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesom Acts made in King Henry's Reign but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince but his Ancient Right for some Years indeed usurp'd by the Pope but now vindicated This is the true import of that Statute which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope to whom it never rightly belonged but not from the Clergy it being expresly provided in the Act that all Licenses be granted by the Arch-Bishop or 2 Spiritual Persons In case of the Arch-Bishop's refusal the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis it ought the rather to be excus'd since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observ'd that that Thesis is contrary to it self His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law this Act I am sure whence he infers it positively asserts the King to be Supreme § 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirm'd by the Patriarch is taken away The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome otherwise cal'd the Pope to or for the office of Bishop or Arch-Bishop of this Realm But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as ow no Subjection to any Patriarch and therefore have no necessity of being confirm'd by him Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity for it supposes none The King's Presentation to a Bishoprick against which he is so warm was no new Usurpation but an ancient Right had he liv'd some Centuries before the Reformation he would have had this Grievance to complain of The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated but for the Reader 's mortification The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv p. 65. as in it The said Arch-Bishop when no Arch-Bishop had been mention'd before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period
Nor are we quitted from our Obligation to the just Autority of our own Bishops because we do not submit to the Invasions of Forreigner But if by Church-Vniversal and Superior Synods is meant what other People understand by those words it rests to be prov'd that the Reformed plead an Exemption from their Autority § 46 The 46th Paragraph tells us of God's just judgment on Bishop Gardiner for having so zealously abetted the King's Supremacy But the divine Judgments are differently interpreted according to the different Sentiments of the Interpreters Other Writers tell us of severer Judgments inflicted on this Prelate than Deprivation and that for more flagrant crimes then asserting the Regal Supremacy He concludes this Chapter with the resentment of the Clergy for their lost Synodal Autority It is confest that the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical power too high in the times of Popery had now produc'd another of depressing it too much But this was the Infelicity of the Clergy not their Crime The same Autority which tells us the Clergy complain'd of this tells us also that those complainers were the Reformers But this is a truth which is industriously conceal'd and the Citation mangled lest it should confess too much Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est saith he from the Antiquitates Britannicae Clericis multo jam acrius atque vigilantius in divina Veritate quam unquam antea laborantibus say the Antiquities This Omission I believe was not for brevity sake for he doth not use to be so frugal in his Citations But the Reader was to understand by Clerici the Popish Clergy exclusively to all others and the decay of Synodal Autority was to be represented not as the grievance but the fault of the Reformers For this reason it is that we find this Author indecently insulting oven that pious Martyr Bishop Hooper All which I shall observe of it is this that what is here said of this Bishop's Appeal from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil power is applicable to St. Paul's a Acts 25.11 Appeal to Caesar The cause then was Ecclesiastical for They b Acts 25.19 had certain questions against him of their own Superstition And the Bishop might have us'd St. Pauls Plea c Acts 24.14 That after the way which they call'd Heresie so worship'd he the God of his Fathers believeing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets This Chapter more nearly concerning the Reformation it may not be amiss to give a brief Summary of what is perform'd in it It is said that all the Supremacy was confirm'd to Edward the 6th which was conceded to Henry the 8th But no reason is given why it should have been diminish'd that some Statutes against Heretics were repeal'd but this repeal not shewn to be without good reason or good Autority that all Jurisdiction Spiritual is said to be deriv'd from the Prince but this Expression taken in a due Sense may be justifyed and if it could not the Act being void we are under no Obligation to defend it that the Bishops are authoriz'd by Virtue of an Act of Parliament to excommunicate but this Interpretation is forc'd upon the Statute and the words taken even in this Sence will not bear the Stress which is laid upon them that 32 Commissioners were appointed to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical and 6 Prelates with 6 others to reform the Ordinal but nothing said to shew that these did not want a Reformation or that the Persons commission'd were not qualified for such a trust and these two urg'd as the mere effects of Parliamentary Supremacy which were the Synodical request of the Clergy that an Oath of Supremacy was impos'd on Persons entring into Holy Orders but this Oath invented by Papists and in that part which gives Offence since alter'd that an Hypothetical Submission of Bonner was not accepted but this such a Submission as that Bishop recanted That the consent of the Clergy was once not urg'd as necessary to make the Regal Injunctions valid But no reason assign'd why it should have been That the Clergy complain'd of their lost Synodal Autority But these the Reformers who yet are accus'd of being no Friends to it That Bishop Hooper appeal'd to the Civil power But so also did St. Paul The title of this Chapter least the Contents may have made the Reader forget it was The Supremacy claim'd by King Edward the 6th A Reply to Chapter the 5th WE are come now to Q. Mary's Reign the fatal Revolutions of which We would willingly forget did not the unseasonable importunity of these Men refresh our memories Our Author had acted the part of a skilful Painter had he cast a veil over this piece of his History for the Calamities of this Reign tend little to the Honour of that Religion and are never properly insisted on but by those who write Invectives against Popery But those Reflections which create horror in other men's breasts seem to have a different Effect on this Writer for in his entrance upon this Reign it is easie to discover such a new Warmth and Vigor in his Expressions as betray him to be in a more then ordinary rapture All that had been done in the two former Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy were now by an equal Autority of Prince Clergy and State revers'd repeal'd ejected His Discourse here has put on a new air and like the Orator in his triumphs over exil'd Cataline he prosecutes declining Heresie with an abiit excessit evasit But here to moderate his Acclamations let me tell him that this Prince who thus reverses repeals and ejects was the same a Burn. V. 2. p 237. that gave the Suffolk men full assurance that she would never make any Innovations or changes in Religion The same that made an open Declaration in Council b Bur. V. 2. p. 245. that though her own Conscience was staid in matters of Religion yet she was resolv'd not to compel or restrain others So that this after repealing reflects severely on those Guides who had the Government of her Conscience and those Principles by which She acted Lay-Supremacy was indeed at last ejected by her but not till the other parts of the Reformation were reverst by it's Influence If sending out Injunctions in matters Ecclesiastical using the Title of Head of the Church convoking Synods ejecting Bishops by Commission prohibiting some Preachers licensing others inhibiting the Pope's Legate to come into the Kingdom if these I say are admitted to be signs of a Lay-Supremacy it must be confest that Q. Mary was such a Supreme It is not therefore Regal Supremacy as such but as countenancing the Reformation which these men condemn Those Powers which in the former Chapter were Invasions of the Church's right do in this easily escape our Author's Censure We are told now of the power of the Prince when Protestantism is to be defac'd who in the establishment
Synodical or by whatsoever name they shall be called unless the King by his Royal assent command them to make promulge and execute the same See for this the Preface of the Act of Parliament Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth 19. c. where it is said that the Clergy of the Realm of England had not only acknowledged that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ but also submitting themselves to the Kings Majesty had promised in verbo Sacerdotii that they would never from henceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called unless the Kings most Royal assent may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same But they gave up also their power to execute any old Canons of the Church without the Kings consent had first thereto as appears by what follows in the next Section The whole Debate with all the traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared herein saith Dr. Heylin are specified at large in the Records of Convocation 1532 which were well worthy the viewing Now if the First and Second Thesis above-named stand good this Act of the Clergy is utterly unlawful For by this the Prince hath authority to hinder the Clergy from altering or reforming any former setled Doctrine in his Kingdome As King Charles also in his Declaration before the 39 Articles manifesteth that he will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree from the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England any varying i. e by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation In what case then had the Reformation been if former Princes in the same language as King Charles had used this pretended lawful power in prohibiting Bishops c. to attempt enact promulge c any thing contrary to the then here setled Popish Doctrines To advance yet somewhat further In the Preface of the same Act of Parliament the Clergy are also said which thing neither Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond § 23. nor Dr. Fern have sufficiently weighed in their Relations of the English Reformation to have humbly besought the Kings Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial or Synodal which be thought to be prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of Thirty Two Persons Sixteen of the Temporalty and Sixteen of the Clergy of the Realm to be chosen and appointed by the Kings Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c shall stand in power Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal not only such as were the sole Constitutions and Canons of the Synods of this Nation which the like Synods may lawfully correct but such as were also the Canons of superior Synods which the Synods of this Nation could not lawfully annul This appears both by the practice of their abrogating and reforming of several Canons that were such nay I think such were all that were reformed and also by the Tenent See below § 28. Statute 25. Hen. 8.21 c. that all the Constitutions made only by mans authority are by the King being supream in his Dominions as he thinks fit mutable To stand with the Laws of God therefore any Canon tho it were not against the Kings Prerogative or Law of the Realm yet if thought by these Judges not to stand with the Laws of God might be annulled Shall be thought by the more part of them Therefore an Act of the Laity in these Spiritual matters if obtaining the consent only of one Clergy-man tho all the rest oppose nay if obtaining the consent of the King tho all the Clergy-Commissioners oppose stands good as being an Act of the major part § 25 In this Act of the Clergy if it be supposed a Synodical request of the whole Clergy and not only of some persons thereof more addicted to the Kings Inclinations and if Canons and Constitutions here be not restrained only to those that seem some way to intrench upon the rights of Civil Power or to some Ecclesiastical external Rites and Ceremonies I see not but that the Clergy here gives away to the King and to the Laity at least if assisted with one or two or indeed without any Clergy their Synodical power to conclude and determine matters of Faith and to order the Government of the Church as they shall think best since all the former Canons and Constitutions Synodal are not about matters of External Rite and Ceremony but some doubtless concerning matters of Faith and such Christian Practices and Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline as are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and necessarily involve Faith of all which Canons the 32 are now made Judges what stands with Gods Law or what is contrary thereto and the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum drawn up partly in Henry the Eighth's partly in Edward the Sixth's time by such Commissioners Reprinted 1640 is found to meddle not only with Canons repugnant to Civil Government or with Rites and Ceremonies but with matters of the Divine Offices and Sacraments Heresies c as appears in the very Titles of that Book Now such Act of the Clergy must needs be most unjust and unlawful if the First or Second or Seventh Thesis above-recited stand good § 26 But whatever sense these words in the Preface of the Act were or may be extended to I do not think that the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine Truth By which authority Princes might as they also did change Religion in this Kingdome at their pleasure but imagined that as they obliged themselves to do nothing without the Kings consent so neither in these matters especially should the King do any thing without theirs as may be gathered First by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supream recited before Secondly by the Declaration of the Bishops against the Pope See Fox p. 971. wherein they alledge against him the Third Canon of the Second General Council Enacting ut controversiae ab Episcopis Provinciarum ubi ortae sunt terminentur that all Causes shall be finished and determined within the Province where the same began and that by the Bishops ef the same Province urged also by Bishop Tonstal in his Answer to Cardinal Poole And Thirdly By several of the said Bishops and particularly by this Tonstal's and Gardiner's of whom Dr. Fern saith that none could have written better against the
Power within his Dominions may upon any pretence of Religion or other whatsoever either take up himself or licence any others to take up the Civil Sword against the King or make any resistance to him therewith in order to any person or cause whatsoever Which thing sufficiently secures his government and the peace of his Kingdome § 182 2. Again as to the second part of the Oath thus much shall be freely conceded That there is some Supremacy in or dine ad Spiritualia to which no Forreign State or Prelate may lay claim As besides that which is named already to belong only to the Civil Magistrate it shall here be granted as being the opinion of several Catholicks That no General Council hath any authority to make any Ecclesiastical Law which any way entrencheth upon any Civil Right Nor any forreign Prelate hath authority to use a Temporal power over Princes when judged heretical to kill or depose them or absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance Were therefore these words of the Oath understood only of such a Forreign power which opposeth the security of the Queens Civil Government as Dr. Hammond urgeth Schism 7. c. § 17. Or which layeth intolerable burthens and exactions upon the Subjects of the Land i. e. as to temporal matters and which draws after it Positions and Doctrines to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince's Crown and Dignity to the exemption of all Ecclesiastical persons such as makes them but half-Subjects to the deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdomes as Dr. Fern urgeth Examin Champ. 9. c. p. 279 it shall be granted here without disputing any such controversy that the Oath for such thing as this could not be justly refused But after these Concessions now to review the two parts of the Oath again §. 183. n. 1. How far not to see what more might lye in them 1. For the First There is a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Civil Magistrate cannot justly claim viz. Such Supremacies as these that a Prince may when a Superior Council abroad or the major part of his Clergy at home hath or doth determine against something which he with some few or a lesser part of his Clergy is perswaded to be consonant to the word of God may I say suppress and forbid the Doctrine of those and establish and promulgate the Doctrine of these may thus make and publish new Ecclesiastical Articles or Canons and correct suspend or dispense with former and that where no just pretence of their violating any way his Civil Government That he without any Synodal consent of his Clergy or He with it against the decrees of Superior Councils may change the publick Church Liturgies her Service or Discipline and that when these no way hurtful to the Civil State That the Clergy may not assemble about Spiritual concernments which none deny that they may do even under Heathen Princes but when he pleaseth to call them may teach or promulgate no Ecclesiastical Decisions in matter of Doctrine or Constitutions in matter of Discipline to their flocks being his Subjects unless he first give his consent unto them tho these concern no civil right That he may introduce into Bishopricks whom he approves without the consent of a major part of the present Episcopacy or may displace any or prohibite the function of their office within his Dominions without any concurrence of the Clergy and where is no just pretence of danger to his Secular Government Briefly to use Bishops Carleton's words cited before That he may use any such Spiritual Jurisdiction § 3 as stands in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offenders Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures All or most of which Supremacies are not Supremacies belonging to the Prince but to the Clergy to Prelates to Councils and Synods Provincial National or higher As hath been laid down in the first and second These See before sect 2.4 and as will appear to any one at the first sight if he will but empty his fancy a little of the prime Patriarch of the Catholick Church his being Anti-Christ and of an erroneous and Superstitious Hierarchy and on the other side of an orthodox and godly Jesias-Prince and seriously consider what a mischief it will bring upon a National Church when the supreme Secular Magistrate thereof is an Heretick or Schismatick and invested with the above-named Supremacies in Spiritual Affairs Nay I may further add to these that there is some Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Protestants themselves or the most Learned of them do not allow to the Prince as this That the Prince alone without the consent of some of his Clergy may make or impose upon his Subjects Ecclesiastical Laws or decide such Controversies And secondly there is another Supremacy which all the Presbyterian Protestants do not allow to the Prince namely that he may prohibite the Church Ministery and Officers from making or imposing any Ecclesiastical Law without his licence and consent first obtained thereto as you may see below § 211. Meanwhile how both these do safely take this Oath there being neither of these limitations by the Oath-imposer mentioned either in it or elsewhere with reference to it nay the contrary being declared concerning the later of these two Supremacies I see not unless the Oath-taker may qualify his Oath according to his own sense To require therefore submission by Oath to such Supremacies of the Civil Magistrate as these now named is not lawful § 184 And that such submission was required from these Bishops is evident I think That submission to the Royal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops 1. Both from that Supremacy which the Queen at that very time in these very things exercised without any Synodal consent against former Synods a Specimen of which you may see below § 201. in Her Majesties Commission to the Uncanonical Ordainers of Arch-bishop Parker and to the same purpose in Stat. 8. Eliz. 1. and which the Kings Henry and Edward had formerly exercised 2. And from that Supremacy which the Parliaments granted and acknowledged due in these things to the Prince as hath been shewed I think sufficiently in this former discourse they granting to the King all that authority and jurisdiction which any Spiritual person or persons had formerly excepting only the authority of ministery of divine offices in the Church See before § 71. All which authority formerly thus granted by the laws and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the taker of this Oath is bound to assist and defend The like to which see also in the 1. and 2. Canon Ecclesiast 1603. Altho the former Clergy under Henry the Eighth had never annexed these Supremacies to the Crown See before § 25 or if they had had again under Queen Mary reversed it Neither is it enough for our men for the setling of