with that because He claims more then his due that which is his due should be denyed him Hence it seems to be that He is so wary in giving us his own Opinions that He disputes so much and affirms so little that he bounds all his Positions with so many limitations that they seem contriv'd on purpose for subterfuges and that He very cautiously ventures not any farther then He thinks tho' falsly the Autority of our Writers will bear him out Hence those Concessions which will perhaps by that Party be judg'd over-liberall That Images and so the veneration or worship of them were very seldom if at all us'd in the Primitive Church That the publick Communion was then most commonly if not allways administred in both kinds unto the People That the Divine Service which then as now was celebrated usually in the Latin or Greek Tongue was much better in those days then now understood of the Common people That the having the Liturgy or Divine Service or the Holy Scriptures in a known tongue is not prohibited nor the using of Images enjoyn'd nor the Priest's administring and the people's receiving the Communion in both kinds if the Supreme Church-Governours so think fit and we say they ill discharge the Office of Church-Governours who do not think fit our Saviours Institution should be observ'd declar'd unlawful by any Canon of any Council Ancient Council he means for latter Councils have declar'd these unlawful These are large grants from a Romanist and which give a great shock to their so much magnified pretence of Universal Tradition Had this Author liv'd in those Ages when the Secular Prince countenanc'd the beginnings of Reformation He would have scarce lost any thing for his too rigorous adhaesion to the C. of Rome For he thinks it probable that had the Reformation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known tongue administred Communion in both kinds thought fit not to use Images changed something of practise only without any decession from the Churches Doctrines the Church-Governours would have been facile to license these Where by the way it seems something unintelligible how they should change practice without decession from Doctrines if Doctrines enjoyn'd such Practices and if according to him Errours in practice allways presuppose some Errour in matter of Faith. But at least we may expect He would have outwardly complied since he notes That some outward compliance at the first of those Bishops who made an open Opposition afterward might be upon a fair Pretence because the first Acts of the Reformation might not be so insupportable as the latter Where it is worth our Observing that the very first Act which gave life to the Reformation was shaking off all manner of Obedience to the See of Rome then which I believe his Holiness contrary to this Author's Sentiments thinks no Act more unsupportable These things consider'd We could not have had a more easie Adversary then this Gentleman and the Church has less reason to fear his open Opposition then had he still continued in her bosom For it seems not to be his Province to publish what is Material against us but to publish Much. But God be thanked our Religion is not establish'd upon so weak a basis as to be overthrown by a few Theses unprov'd and falsly applied Nor is it any wonder if that arguer doth not convince who uses for Principles Conclusions drawn from Praemisses which the world never saw and then assumes such things as every one acquainted with History is able to contradict Certainly his University-Readers will not be very fond of the Conclusion of that Syllogism whose Major is a petitio principii Minor a down-right fals-hood in matter of fact They no doubt are surpriz'd to find Consequents come before their Antecedents and Church-Government part the 5th to have stept into the World somewhat immaturely methinks before the other four But the Lawfulness of the English Reformation was to be examin'd and it would have took up too much time to shew why he impos'd upon us such a Test. It might therefore be thought seasonable enough to examin the Truth of his Theses when he shall be pleas'd to communicate to us whence they are inferr'd In the meanwhile it may not be unuseful to consider what disservice he had done to our Cause had his success aequal'd the boldness of his attempt After all his Theses and their Applications his Correspondent Alpha's and Beta's his perplex'd Paragraphs his intricate Paratheses and his taedious Citations what Doctrine of the Church of Rome has he establish'd or what principle of Ours has he disprov'd Should we grant that the Clergy only have power in Controversies of Religion that the Secular Prince has no Autority to reform Errours in the Church that our Princes did wrongfully usurp such an Autority and that our Reformation was not the act of the Clergy will it hence follow which yet is to be prov'd by this Author e're he can perswade us to entertain any favourable Opinion of Popery That the second Commandment ought to be expung'd out of the Decalogue that Idolatry is no Sin or worshipping of Images no Idolatry that Transubstantiation is to be believ'd in despight of Sense Reason Scripture and Antiquity the Service of God to be administred in an unknown tongue as it were in mere contradiction to Saint Paul and the Communion to be celebrated in one kind notwithstanding our Saviours Drink ye all of this It is indeed our happiness that the Reformation was carried on by the joynt concurrence of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power that We are united together by common Rules for Government and Worship agree'd on by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation and made Laws to us by the Autority of the Sovereign We are allways ready to prove that the Church of England being a National Church and not Subject to any forreign Jurisdiction ow'd no Obedience to the Bishop or Church of Rome therefore might without their leave reform her self and that accordingly our Religion is establish'd by such Laws as want no autority either Civil or Ecclesiastical which they ought to have This is a Plea which we shall be allways prepar'd to justifie and a Blessing for which we thank God and for the continuance of which we shall never cease to pray But now had those which we esteem corruptions of the Roman Church never been cast out or were they reestablish'd which God in his mercy forbid by as good autority as that by which they are now abolish'd Yet even then we could not submit to such Determinations and being concluded by an antecedent Obligation to God durst not obey even lawful autority commanding unlawful things He therefore that would gain a Proselyte who acts upon prudent and Conscientious principles in vain entertains him with Schemes of Church-Government since the things contested are such as no Government in the world can make lawful It would
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
Institution in the charge and cure But the Collation challeng'd by our Princes is of another Nature and signifies no more then the Nominating a Person to be Ordain'd to such an Office or presenting a Person already Ordained to such a Benefice And the right of Investitures which is the same with such a Collation is by this Bishop asserted to Emperours This being clear'd which was by him on purpose perplex'd If we take the extent of the Regal power from this Bishop He tells us That Sovereign's as Nursing Fathers of the Chuâ—â—â— are to see that Bishops and all Inferiour Ministers perform their faithfull duties in their several places and if they be found faulty to punish them His next Author is Mr. Thorndike Who is as large as any one in the Vindication of the Churches rights and Yet He tells us that No man will refuse Christian Princes the Interest of protecting the Church against all such Acts as may prove praejudicial to the common Faith. He holds as this Writer with great concern observes that the Secular power may restore any law which Christ or his Apostles have ordained not only against a Major part but all the Clergy and Governours of the Church and may for a Paenalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho' they also be establish'd by another Law Apostolical Thus that considerative man who held not the Pope to be Antichrist or the Hierarchy of the Church to be followers of Antichrist Bishop Taylour his next Author doth with the rest assert that the Episcopal Office has some powers annex'd to it independent on the Regal But then he farther lays down these Rules That the Supreme Civil-power is also Supreme Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Hath a Legislative power in Affairs of Religion and the Church Hath Jurisdiction in causes not only Ecclesiastical but also Internal and Spiritual Hath autority to convene and dissolve all Synods Ecclesiastical Is indeed to govern in Causes Ecclesiastical by the means and measure of Christ's Institutions i. e. by the Assistance and Ministry of Ecclesiastical Persons but that there may happen a case in which Princes may and must refuse to confirm the Synodical decrees Sentences and Judgments of Ecclesiastics That Censures Ecclesiastical are to be inflicted by the consent and concurrence of the Supreme Civil power The next Author cited is the Learned Primate Bramhal and We have here reason to wonder that one Who praetends to have been conversant in his Writings dares appear in the Vindication of a Cause which the Learned Author has so longe since so shamefully defeated As for the right of Sovereign Princes This Arch-Bishop will tell him That to affirm that Sovereign Princes cannot make Ecclesiastical Constitutions under a Civil pain or that they cannot especially with the advice and concurrence of their Clergy assembled in a National Synod reform errors and abuses and remedy Incroachments and Usurpations in Faith or Discipline is contrary to the sense and practise of all Antiquity and as for matter of Fact He will instruct him that our kings from time to time call'd Councils made Ecclesiastical Laws punish'd Ecclesiastical Persons saw that they did their duties in their calling c. From this Bishop's acknowledgment that the Bishops are the proper Judges of the Canon this Author that He may according to the Language of a modern Pen as well waken the Taciturn with Quaestions as silence the Loquacious with baffling fallacies takes Occasion briskly to ask whether this Bishop doth not mean here that the Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the King's Dominions and use Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Autority But see saith He the Bishops depriv'd of the former power in the Reformation To which I answer that the power of which they were depriv'd in the Reformation was only of such an executing the Canons as carried with it pecuniary and corporal Punishments and this power the Bishop has told him they could not Exercise by their own Autority And here it were to be wish'd that our Author in reading this Bishop's Works had made use of his advice To cite Authors fully and faithfully not by halves without adding to or new moulding their Autorities according to Fancy or Interest The next Advocate against Regal Supremacy is King Charles the First But if we may take a draught of that Blessed Martyr's Sentiments from his own Portraiture He did not think his Autority confin'd to Civil Affairs but that the true glory of Princes consists as well in advancing Gods Glory in the maintenance of true Religion and the Churches good as in the Dispensation of Civil power with Justice and Honour to the publick Peace He thought himself as King intrusted by God and the Laws with the good both of Church and State and saw no reason why he should give up or weaken by any change that power and Influence which in right and reason He ought to have over both He thought himself oblig'd to preserve the Episcopal Government in its right Constitution not because his Bishops told him so but because his Iudgment was fully satisfied that it had of all other the best Scripture grounds and also the constant practice of Christian Churches He was no Friend of implicit Obedience but after he has told the Prince that the best Profession of Religion is that of the Church of England adds I would have your own Iudgment and reason now seal to that Sacred Bond which Education hath written that it may be judiciously your own Religion and not other Mens Custom or Tradition which you profess He did not give that glorious Testimony to the Religion established in the Church of England that it was the best in the World not only in the community as Christian but also in the special Notion as Reformed and for this reason required and intreated the Prince as his Father and his King that he would never suffer his Heart to receive the least check against or disaffection from it till he had first tried it and after much search and many disputes thus concluded These are the Sentiments of our Authors in which if I have been over-long the Reader will excuse me that I choose rather to intermix something useful from these great Pens then to entertain him altogether with the Paralogisms and prevarications of this Writer There is nothing that remains considerable under this first Thesis but his Sub-sumption that whatever powers belong'd to the Church in times of persecution and before Emperours had embrac'd Christianity are and must still be allowed to belong to her in Christian States Which I conceive not altogether so Necessary that it must be allowed and I am sure by our Authors it is not As for Convening of Councils the power of greatest concern Bishop Andrews to this Quaestion What say you to the 300 Years
be more rational to shew were not that an attempt long since despair'd of that the particular doctrines and practises to which we are invited are agreeable to the word of God or that it doth not concern us whether they be or not For if either it may be prov'd that the Errours of the Church of Rome were so great that there was a necessity of reforming them that every National Church has a right to reform her self that this right of the Church of England in particular was unquestionable that she us'd no other then this her lawful right and that accordingly the Reformation was effected by the Major part of the then legal Church-Governours Or if in failure or this which yet we say is far from being our case it may be prov'd that where evident Necessity requires and the prevailing Errours are manifest there the Civil power may lawfully reform Religion without the concurrence of the major part of the Clergy for Secular Interests averse from Reformation Or if lastly supposing no such Reformation made by lawful authority but the Laws which enjoyn such erroneous Doctrines remaining in their full force and vigour every private Christian can plead an Exemption from his Obedience to them by proving them evidently contradictory to the known laws of God if any one of these Pleas are valid all which have by our Writers been prov'd to be so beyond the possibility of a fair Reply then Nothing which is aim'd at in these Papers can affect us and tho' the author would have shew'd more skill in proving his Question yet he had still betray'd his want of prudence in the choice of it By what hath been sayd the Reader will be induc'd to think that these Papers do not so much concern the Church of England as the State and that a Reply to them is not so properly the task of a Divine as of a Lawyer The Civil power is indeed manifestly struck at and an Answer might easily be fetcht from Keble and Coke He may perswade himself that he acts craftily but certainly he acts very inconsistently who erects a Triumphal Statue to his Prince and at the same time undermines his Autority in monumental Inscriptions gives him the glorious and astonishing Title of Optimus Maximus and yet sets up a superiour Power to his If neither Loyalty nor gratitude could perswade him to speak more reverâ—ntly yet out of wariness he ought to have been more cautious in laying down such things as seem to have an ill aspect on his Majesties proceedings For it may seem very rash to deny that the Prince can remove from the Exercise of his Office any of his Clergy for not obeying his Decisions in matters of a Spiritual Nature when a Reverend Prelate suffers under such a Sentence to assert that the Prince ought not to collate to Benefices where the Clergy have Canonical exceptions against the Person nominated whilst a Friend of his thus qualified enjoys the benefit of such a Collation to find fault with the Reformers that they gave their Prince leave to dispense with Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical when he himself is in that case most graciously dispens'd with How far the Regal power extends it self in these cases especially as it may be limited by the municipal laws of the Realm I am not so bold as to determine but where such Rights are claim'd by the Sovereign and actually exercis'd there it becomes not the modesty of a private Subject to be so open and liberal in condemning them But then above all he renders his Loyalty justly questionable when he tells us it is disputed by the Roman Doctors and leaves it a Question Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Princes coactive Power or to authorise others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the Church Now I appeal to the judicious Reader whether the substance of that infamous Libel which was part of a late Traytour's Indictment and which was written by way of Polemical Discourse as he pleaded might not if manag'd by this Author's pen have been thus warily exprest Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Civil matters against Acts of Parliament then the Parliament hath not also virtually some temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Princes coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the State Such bold Problems as these ought not to be left undecided and one who had any zeal for his Prince would scarce let the Affirmative side of the Quaestion pass without affixing a brand on it These Expressions among others He might well be conscious would be offensive to any SIR of known Fidelity and Loyalty to his Prince and therefore such person 's good Opinion was to be courted in an Epistle Apologetickâ— But certainly it was expected that the kind Sir should read no farther then the Epistle for if he did he would find himself miserably impos'd upon The Author in this Epistle praeacquaints him with these things 1. That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only in things which are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 2. 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 3. Nor of any but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth Now I shall humbly beg leave to undeceive the unknown Sir and to represent to him that in all these he is misinform'd As to the first 1. That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only such as are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Now if by dubious he means such things as He does not doubt but they are Spiritual then this doth not reach our case because We may doubt whether some things are not Temporal which He doubts not but they are Spiritual But if by dubious He means such things as are doubted by no body but that they are purely Spiritual then are we agreed since neither do We allow the Temporal Prince any power in things of which We our selves doubt not but they are purely Spiritual That there are some Powers merely Spiritual appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Prince no true Son of the Church of England will deny but now altho' the substance of those Powers be immediately from God and not from the King
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 Iean 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 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 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 defire 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 the Court of Parliament where they shall be view'd verified publish'd and registred with such Modifications as that Court shall think fit for the good of the Realm and all processes shall proceed according to such restrictions and no otherwise In these two Liberties we find the Autority of the French King farther extended and the Papal power more limited then our Author can be contented the Regal Jurisdiction should be enlarg'd and the Patriarchal confined by the Reformed What power the most Christian King claims in confirming Canons we may learn from Petrus de Marca who lays it down for a Rule which never fails That the deliberations of the Gallican Church can be look'd upon no otherwise then as Counsel given to the King and that they cannot be put in execution without his consent and confirmation And he there saith that the King may praeside in Councils as Head. And in another place proposing to himself this Quaestion Whether since the supreme protection of the Canons doth belong to the King it thence follows that He can command that they be observ'd without expecting the sentence of the Gallican Church He answers * that it is indeed certain that the Observation of them will be the more sacred if they be made with the Universal consent of the Clergy because every one desires that that should take place which he himself approves of But then that it is aequally certain that the King with the advice of his Council may by his Edicts decree that the Canons be observ'd and may add such Modes and Circumstances as are necessary for the better Execution of them and accommodate them to the Interest of the State. This Autority he confirms from the Examples of the first Christian Emperors and the former French Kings and adds expresly That the most Christian Kings still use that right And now methinks the revising of the Canons by the Kings of England especially when humbly besought to do it by the Clergy should not be an Invasion of the Churches rights when the French Kings even without such Interposition of the Church exercise the same Right and yet do according to our Auther leave to the management of the Clergy all power in Spirituals I might here insist upon Collation of Benefices which the French Kings challenge by right of the Regale but I shall choose rather to mention the assembling of Councils because a French King in the last Century seems to have doubted whether his Clergy might convene without his consent as appears from that bold Speech of his Embassadour in the Council of Trent which because it gives us some insight into the freeness of that Synod I shall beg leave to transcribe the latter part of it from Goldastus We refuse to be subject to the Command of Pius the 4th All his judgments and decrees we refuse reject and contemn and although most Holy Fathers Your Religion Life and Learning was ever and ever shall be of great Autority with Us Yet seeing You do nothing but all things are manag'd rather at Rome then at Trent and the things that are here publish'd are rather the Placita of Pius the 4th then the Decrees of the Council of Trent We denounce and protest here before You all that whatsoever things are decree'd in this Assembly by the will and pleasure of Pius neither the Most Christian King will ever approve nor the French Church ever acknowledge for the Decrees of an Oecumenical Council In the mean time the Most Christian King commands all you his Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots Doctors and Divines to depart hence then to return when it shall please God
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
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
this Authority 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 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 These 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 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 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 and disauthorize Spiritual Persons for Moral and Civil Misdemeanors damageable to the Common-Wealth But this Limitation is forgot when from this Thesis He would prove the ejection of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time unlawful For their Deprivation was for refusing the Oath of Supremacy made first by Roman-Catholicks in King Henry the 8th's time and reviv'd by Queen Elizabeth so that the Justice of it depends merely on the Right of the Civil power to make Oaths for the better security of their Government and to impose such Penalties as are exprest in the Law on the Violators and if such Refusal be damageable to the Common-Wealth as it was then judg'd then the Deprivation of those Refusers will be justifiable according to his own Principles Thus again in his 8th Thesis When he has laid down That as for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any New Canons contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former Superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them He restrains it to those only as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his Civil Government nor the National Synod can shew more prejudicial to their particular Church then the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches Where by the way methinks it should suffice if they were aequally prejudicial for one Church is never the less wrong'd because another suffers Now we desire no more then the benefit of this limitation for if the Prince may reverse such Constitutions when prejudicial to Civil Government and the National Synod when praejudicial to their particular Church and each of these are Judges of such praejudice for neither doth AEquity admit nor doth He appoint any other Arbiter then each of these have as much power granted them as they challenge which is only to alter such Constitutions as are prejudicial to them Having praemis'd thus much in general and caution'd the Reader against this piece of Sophistry which runs through the greatest part of this Discourse I shall now proceed to a particular survey of his Theses As for the first and second I shall at present grant him that favour which he seems to request of all his Readers i. e. suppose them to be true and shall content my self only to examin what Inferences he deduces from them And here I cannot but commend his Policy for setting his Conclusions at so great a distance from his Praemisses for they are commonly such as would have by no means agreed to stand too nigh together From his first and second Thesis that the Clergy have power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judge what is divine truth what are Errors that they cannot alienate this Power to the Secular Prince he infers That that Synodical Act of the Clergy in K. Henry the Eighth's time whereby they promise not to Assemble without the King 's Writ nor when Assembled to execute any Canons without the King's consent is unlawful Now it is to be observed that the Clergy neither do deny that they have a Power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion which is what the first Thesis would prove nor do they transfer such a Power on the King which might be against the Tenor of the second The utmost which can be deduc'd hence is That the Clergy did for prudential motives limit themselves in the Exercise of one branch of their Spiritual Power and it will be difficult for this Author to prove that He who has a power jure divino may not by humane Laws be limited in the Use of it Husbands have a power over their Wives Fathers over their Children and Masters over their Servants by the Law of God and yet this power may be
regulated by the Laws of the Land. Thus the Priest has a power to bind and loose from our Saviour's Commission and yet according to this Author before the Reformation the Inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the Commands of their lawful Spiritual Superior Thus also if a General Council have power to determine matters of Faith then according to his Principles they have power to convene in order to such Determination and this power of theirs is unalienable and yet the Romanists will not allow that such Conventions may be made at pleasure but that the hic nunc are determinable by the Pope who only has power to indict Councils and to give Autority to those decrees which yet derive their power from the Council's being infallible and from the Holy Ghost assisting them Another Act which from the same Thesis he accuses of Injustice is the Clergy's beseeching the King's Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal which be thought prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of 32 Persons 16 of the Temporalty and 16 of the Clergy of this Realm to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annull'd shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approv'd to stand with the Law of God c. shall stand in power Now it is to be consider'd that the Laws which the Clergy here desire may be revis'd are of a far different Nature and therefore the Inspection of them may well be committed to different Judges Some of them were suppos'd prejudicial to the King's Praerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws of the Realm and here the Lay-Commissioners being persons of the upper and lower House of Parliament see the Stat. were the best Judges Of others it was to be enquir'd Whether they were agreeable to the word of God or not and here the Clergy were ready to give their Determination And altho' they both acted in a joynt Commission yet no good reason seems assignable why both Lay and Ecclesiastical Judges should be appointed but that the matters to be examin'd being of different cognizance those which related to Civil Affairs should be determin'd by the Temporalty those which were of a Spiritual Nature by the Spiritualty And if so then the deciding of these matters is not transfer'd from the Spiritualty to the Temporalty but from one part of the Clergy to another And this He himself after all his descants upon this Act confesseth For whatever sense the words in the Praeface of this Act were or may be extended to I do not think the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine truth and for this Opinion of his He gives us his Reasons in that and the subsequent pages Another Act which is by this Author judg'd contrary to his first Thesis is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking holding or doing against any Laws call'd Spiritual Laws made by Autority of the See of Rome which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the King's Praerogative shall be deem'd to be Haeresie from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Haeresie Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Haereticks Whether such speaking or doing be Haeresie or not they have power to ordain that it shall not be deem'd so i. e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment to use our Author's expression of another Act made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queens Majesties Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religion shall be to all intents adjudg'd as Traytors and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason and the like of Persons willingly reconcil'd Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler or Reconciled is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traytor all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments without being accountable for this to any Autority under God's And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself or acts against such Laws of a Forreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right Another Act condemn'd by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Autority to make Ecclesiastical laws and pursuant to this 42 Articles of Religion publish'd by the Autority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign Now not to engage my self in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title praefix'd they are said to be Articuli de quibus in Synodo London A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros convenerat Regia autoritate in lucem editi I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London So that here is only a part of the Synod employ'd in drawing up these Articles and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transfer'd from Ecclesiastial persons to Secular which was by him to have been prov'd Another Inference which he deduces from these Theses is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended will best be learnt from our Articles The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not or ought not to be subject to any forreign Jurisdiction So far for the extent of this power but now for the restraint Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended We give not to our Prince the ministring either of God's word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify
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
Pastours who so unfaithfully manag'd the Depositum of their Saviour If denying the Popes Authority was so piacular a Crime what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries who professing a more then ordinary Sanctity and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so resolutely abjur'd it What of those Learned in the University who after a solemn debate and serious disquisition of the cause so peremptorily defin'd against it What of the Whole Body of the Clergy whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies and to judge what is Gods Word and divine Truth what are Errors who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it What of the leading part of those Prelates Gardiner Bonner and Tonstal who Wrote Preach'd and Fram'd Oaths against it What of the Nobles and Commons Persons of presum'd Integrity and Honour who prepared the Bill against it What lastly of the Sovereign a declar'd Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine and Defender of the Roman Catholick Faith who past that Bill into a Law and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments If all these acted sincerely then it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed but of the Romanists which is written against If not we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Profesors then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that which if it be any part is a main Article of their Faith But to return to our Author what shall we judge of his skill in Controversie who from Principles assum'd gratis draws Deductions which by no means follow and which if they did follow would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronize But because he has offer'd something under this first Thesis why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy I come now to consider it He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and Scholar of the Church and he earnestly claims a Supreme power and confesseth an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual Matters to bind them upon Temporal Punishments to Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's Determinations and Decrees But here he either willingly misrepresents or ignorantly mistakes our Principles For the Prince claims a supreme power over all persons to bind them by temporal Punishments to the Obedience not of the Churches but of Christs Laws or of the former no farther then they are agreeable with the latter But saith He if the Prince meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees Orthodox and right this power is in effect claim'd to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees whilst he praetends an Obligation both of himself and His Subjects to the Churches But what if the Prince judge such Decrees neither Orthodox nor right Must he here give them the Autority of Civil Sanctions This is to establish Iniquity by a Law and a power is claim'd in effect to bind all persons to the Decrees of the Clergy whilst as has been said He praetends an Obligation of Himself Subjects to the Laws of Christ. But he goes on and tells us That all Texts of the New-Testament do ordain Obedience of Church-men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned no less then to others From which I suppose he would infer an exemption from Obeying the Prince in Spiritualibus But supposing that all Texts do aequally ordain Obedience to Princes Pagan and Christain yet the Obedience to a Christian Prince will be of greater latitude since because he professes the true Religion his Commands in Spirituals not contradicting our Saviours will exact our Compliance Obedience in licitis is all the Subject ow's to a Prince either Christian or Infidel but the Christian Prince will oftner challenge my Obedience because he more rarely transgresseth the bounds of licita If as he adds all Princes are oblig'd with the Sword which God hath given them to protect and defend his true Religion and Service in their Dominions whensoever it offers it self to them Since many Religions offer themselves it becomes the Prince to take Care which is the true and not to take whatever is offer'd which would be utterly destructive of our Authors Principles As for the Acts of Ancient Councils obliging even without the Emperours consent We own their Obligation over their proper Subjects so far as they were agreeable with the Laws of Christ and his Apostles and urge the Autority of Emperours no farther then as adding their Civil power to the Spiritual Power of the Church And here we challenge no other Power to our Princes then was exercis'd by Christian Emperours that is to call Synods and to have a liberty of confirming or not confirming their Decrees by Civil Sanctions As for what he cites out of our Writers all amounts to no more then this that there are some Offices peculiar to the Church Which neither do we deny nor did our Princes ever invade these Functions But because from hence He would insinuate that the Prince has no power at all in Causes Ecclesiastical in his Citations from these Writers comes up to that Character which the Book of Education gives us of the SLY the CLOSE and the RESERV'D who take notice of so much as serves to their own designs and misinterpret and detort what You say even contrary to Your intention I shall as briefly as may be shew that their Concessions are far from giving any Countenance to his Cause Bishop Andrews doth indeed say as all other of our Church Potestatis mere Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiâ—e Conciones i. e. dubia legis explicandi munus claves Sacramenta omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur But then there are other Ecclesiastical powers which he challenges to the Prince viz. To have Supreme Command in the exteriour Polity of the Church To be keeper of both Tables To exercise all that Power which the good Kings of Israel did To make Ecclesiastical Laws To delegate Persons to judge in causes Ecclesiastical To punish the breach of those Spiritual Laws To learn the will of God not only from the Mouth of the Clergy but also from the Scripture To have autority over all Persons To eject even the High Priest if he deserve it To pull down High-places and to Reform the Church from Idolatry and Superstition These He claims to appertain to the Prince Iure Divino The next Author is Dr. Carlton He amongst other rights of the Church reckons Institution and Collation of Benefices which this Writer marks with Italian Characters and makes much Use of But this Apostolical Institution and Collation by the Bishop alluded to doth also involve in it Ordination even as the Ordination which is observ'd by himself from the Bishop signified also
before Constantine How went Assemblies then Who call'd them all that while returns this Answer Truly as the people of the Jews did before in AEgypt under the tyranny of Pharaoh They were then a Church under persecution until Moses was rais'd up by God a Lawful Magistrate over them The cases are alike for all the world No Magistrate did assemble them in AEgypt and good reason why they had none to do it But this was no barr but when Moses arose authoriz'd by God had the Trumpets by God deliver'd to him He might take them keep them use them for that end for w ch God gave them to assemble the Congregation Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh or Constantine then Nero See also Dr Field His Third Thesis is That the Secular Prince cannot depose or eject from the exercise of their office in his Dominions any of the Clergy nor introduce others into the place of the ejected But the Quaestion here is not Whether the Prince can eject any of the Clergy from the Exercise of their Office but Whether he can depose any for not Exercising it While the Clergy faithfully discharge their Office the Prince ought to protect them and if for this they suffer no doubt but they are Martyrs But it is possible they may abuse their power and then it is to be enquir'd Whether Civil Laws may not inhibit them the Use of it This Author holds the Negative and tell us 1st They cannot eject them at pleasure without giving any cause thereof But he doth not pretend that the Reforming Princes ever ejected any without a Cause given And therefore he adds 2ly Neither may Princes depose them for any Cause which concerns things Spiritual but with this Limitation without the consent of the Clergy I could wish he had here told us what he ment by things Spiritual For things as well as Persons Spiritual are of great Extent d Pope Paul the 3d told the Duke of Mantua that it is the Opinion of the Doctors that Priest's Concubines are of Ecclsiastical Jurisdiction But he gives us his reason for his assertion Because it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam as in Personam and the Prince as has been mention'd in the 1st Thesis has no Autority to judge such Causes purely Spiritual Now the power denied to the Prince in the Ist Thesis is to determine matters of Faith. But may not the Prince judge whether an Ecclesiastick deserves Deprivation without determining a Matter of Faith May not he judge according to what has been already determin'd by the Church Or may not he appoint such Delegates as can determine matters of Faith Or are all the Causes for which a Clergy-man may be depriv'd merely Spiritual By Virtue of this Thesis he proves the Ejection of the Western Patriarch unlawful Now was not this Matter of Faith already determin'd by the Clergy Had they not unanimously decreed That he had no more Autority here then any other forreign Bishop And can the King be said here to have acted without the consent of the Clergy And yet that matter of fact is applied to this Thesis As for the Ejection of the Bishops in King Edward's time is not that confest to have been for not acknowledging the Regal Supremacy But this was a matter which wanted no new Determination for the Church-Autority had decided it in their Synod in King Henry's Reign But it is said the Judges were not Canonical as being the King's Commissioners part Clergy part Laity But neither was the cause purely Canonical for denying the Supremacy was not only an infringment of the Canon but also a Violation of an Act of Parliament As for the Bishops Bonner and Gardiner they were accus'd for not asserting the Civil power of the King in his Nonage Nor do they plead Conscience for not doing it but deny the Matter of Fact The same Objections were then made against their Deprivation as are reassum'd by this Author now and therefore it may suffice to return the same answers That the Sentence being only of Deprivation privation from their Sees it was not so entirely of Ecclesiastical Censure but was of a mix'd nature so that Lay-men might joyn in it since they had taken Commissions from the King for their Bishopricks by which they held them only during the Kings pleasure they could not complain of their Deprivation which was done by the King's Autority Others who look'd farther back remembred that Constantine the Emp. had appointed Secular Men to enquire into some things objected to Bishops who were call'd Cognitores or Triers and such had examin'd the business of Coecilian Bishop of Carthage even upon an Appeal after it had been tried by several Synods and given Judgment against Donatus and his party The same Constantine had also by his Autority put Eustathius out of Antioch Athanasius out of Alexandria and Paul out of Constantinople and though the Orthodox Bishops complain'd of their particulars as done unjustly at the false suggestion of the Arrians yet they did not deny the Autority of the Emperors in such cases But neither is the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by this Author allow'd to be a proper Judge that because He did not Act by his Canonical Superiority in the Church but by the Autority he joyntly with the rest receiv'd from the King As if he had ever the less the power of a Metropolitan because He was also the King's Commissioner By this way of arguing the Decrees of Oecumenical Councils will be invalid because they were call'd to determine Controversies by the command of Emperors But how Uncanonical soever King Edward's Bishops are said to have been He does not except against Queen Mary's Bishops tho' they in depriving the Reformed acted by Commission from the Queen As for the Bishops ejected in Q. Elizabeth's time it has been already said it was for a Civil cause i. e. refusing the Oath of Supremacy which why it should be lawful in her Father's time and unlawful in her's why it should be contriv'd by Roman Catholics in that Reign and scrupled by the same Roman Catholics in this Why it should be inoffensive when exprest in larger terms and scandalous when mitigated whence on a sudden the Refusers espied so much Obliquity in that Oath which they had all took before probably either as Bishops or Priests in the reigns of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th whence this change of things proceeded unless from secret intimations from Rome or their own Obstinacy will not easily be conjectur'd As for his Note that what is sayd of the other Clergy may be said likewise of the Patriarch for any Autority which he stands posses'd of by such Ecclesiastical Canons as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government He has been often told by our Authors that Patriarchs are an Humane Institution That as they were