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 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 * Episcopacy not prejud to Reg power p 22 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 Jus 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 * Cura principum Christianorum olim non solum Haereticorum furoros compressi contumacia Episcoporum aut Clericorum adversus Synodorum sententias rebellium ab externa potentia repressa sed etiam Principum studio prohibiti Episcopi ne legibus secularibus vel Canonibus violatis injuriam subditis inferrent De concord l. 4. cap. 1. par 2. 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 * Canonum custodiae duobus modis prospiciebant Principes tum delegatione Magistratuum qui vetarent ne quid contra Canones tentaretur tum exactis poenis à contumacibus si quid perperam gestum esset lb par 4. 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 * In manifestissima violatione canonibus factam injuriam iis poenis Principes ulsciscebantur quae legibus irrogatae erant nempe expulsione à sede Deturbationem enim illam quae vacantem Ecclesiam redderet sui arbitrii esse putabant non autem regradationem vel dejectionem ab Episcopali dignitate quae erat poena mere Ecclesiastica Ib. par 6. 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 * Ibid. 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
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 §. 14. p. 18. 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 §. 22. p. 29. 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 §. 27. p. 36. 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 §. 25. p. 31. 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 Temporally 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 §. 26.10 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
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
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue 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 Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever Secondly That for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop Commissioners by the Kings Highness to be appointed shall have full power and authority to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same and no further Appeals to be made These Commissioners therefore appointed by the King are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod or to the Patriarch § 34 Again 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament That no speaking doing or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the Kings Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy From which all that I would note is this that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy and do declare that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them Again it is Enacted by Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540 are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and shall suffer pains of death by Burning Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy without any Appeal as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19 c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis And the Protestants in justifying this Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Or A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People set forth by the King's Authority at that time or against the Six Articles which were in the same Act Established as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. the Publishing of which Act saith Lord Herbert p. 447. gave no little occasion of murmur since to revoke the conscience not only from its own Court but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law as is there Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. set down §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded § 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is That Henry the Eighth made no new Law See likewise his Vindic. p. 86. 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth were only declarative of old Law not enactive of new Law proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert and of the Lord Coke Reports Fifth Part. And 2ly Schism Guarded p. 61 62. That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso Fox the First of these if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke Reports §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. c. You shall find no such thing if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes You may find Appeals to the Pope or other Forreign Judge and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus to have been prohibited by former Laws that is in some particular Cases wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights Profits Securities or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor Vobis posteris vestris Regibus c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66. This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5 c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where upon pain of a Premunire all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome But this is in certain Cases only see Vindic. p. 81. Cases indeed Ecclesiastical but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects which all Ecclesiastical matters I hope neither are nor are pretended to be viz. these Cases Popes refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question Again The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent whereby saith the Statute the Kings Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away and so the Realm destitute as well of Council as of Substance surely these are Temporal Considerations and so the Crown of England which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope c. the Regality that is in those Temporal things above named In these Cases Bulls c from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited as infringing the Civil Rights And to this Statute in such case it is said there the Lords Spiritual gave their consent But meanwhile making Protestations saith the Statute that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church And Richard the Second notwithstanding this Act was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it 2. Rich. 2.7 Again you may find perhaps Appeals Bulls c prohibited in general without the Kings content first obtained thereto But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them but only out of an intention to examine them first whether any thing were contained in them
prejudicial to the Temporal and Civil Rights and Emoluments and Priviledges of the Prince and of his Subjects that the Mitre might not encroach upon the Crown both which have their certain limits of Jurisdiction and may do wrong one to the other Such authority as this then in Church-matters you may find exercised by former Princes of England or perhaps some other power used by them against the Church and defended by the common Lawyers of those days more than is justifiable But on the other side I think you will not find either assumed by the Prince or allowed to him by any Statutes before the times of Henry the Eighth such Powers in Ecclesiastical matters as some of these following Namely A Power to correct and reform all Errors and Heresies in Religion by such persons as the Prince shall appoint to judge thereof half of them being Laicks repealing also the former course of tryal of them by the ordinary Church-Magistrates as you may see below § 39. A Power to make and reverse Ecclesiastical Laws alter the Church Liturgies publick Forms of administring the Sacraments Ordinals c without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or any lawful Church Authority A Power to hinder and prohibits the Clergy that they may correct or reform any such Heresies or may make or publish any such Ecclesiastical Decrees or Laws within the Kings Dominions without his consent thereto first obtained Without his Consent not to examine whether such their Constitutions might be any way prejudicial to the State Temporal for this were but meet and just but whether such be agreeable or repugnant to Gods Word and dangerous to the Peoples Salvation and Spiritual State A Power thus in all Causes Ecclesiastical Licences Faculties Dispensations to be the final Judge by himself or by his Court of Chancery or by some other Deputies whom he pleaseth to choose to whom Appeal may be made concerning what is agreeable or what repugnant to the Holy Scripture A Power to restrain all Forreign Appeals and Censures from thence not only in all Cases mixt with the Interests of the Temporal Government but also in all matters meerly Spiritual and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance A Power to prohibit or reverse any Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Councils Patriarchal or General tho in things wherein Temporal Regalities or Prerogatives or the Temporal safety and peace of the people is not concerned but as I said upon pretence of their being conceived to contain something repugnant to Gods Law A Power to hinder that no Ecclesiastical Governors may call any Synod or Assembly within his Dominions nor exercise in foro externo any Ecclesiastical Censures without his consent A Power to command such persons to be induced and instituted in Ecclesiastical Benefices and Dignities whom the lawful Ecclesiastical Power refuseth as Unorthodox or Uncanonical See Schism Guardâ—d p. 61.161 Vindic. p. 268. Lastly A Coactive Power in foro externo so far extended as that it leaves for the Clergy as independently belonging to them only an Internal Power or Jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience or an Habitual Power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments exercising the power of the Keys in foro conscientiae ordaining and degrading Ecclesiasticks but without any Liberty actually or lawfully to exercise the same in any Princes Dominions if he denyeth it without any Power allowed to the Clergy to summon Offenders in foro externo and to punish them with the Spiritual Sword either for their convicted crimes or for non-appearance and this whether Secular Princes either favour or oppose without any Power to call or keep any publick Assemblies for publick Worship for decision of Controversies in Religion for making Church Laws i. e such as prejudice no Temporal Rights and publishing and imposing the same Determinations and Canons upon Ecclesiastical Censures upon the Church's Subjects in the several Dominions of Princes whether they consent or resist Without any Power of their electing and ordaining future Clergy in the several Dominions of Princes Christian as well as others whenever these Princes shall propose or assent to the admission of no such persons as they I mean the lawful Church Authority shall judge Orthodox and capable Such Powers are not mentioned at least clearly by Bishop Bramhal to belong to the Clergy but seem to be swallowed in the Coactive Power of the Prince Such Powers were in the possession of the Church independently on Princes for the first Three Hundred Years Such Powers being translated to the Secular Governors when Christian do arm them when Christians Heretical to change and overturn the Church in their Dominions as they please whilst the Clergy ought not to contradict Such Powers are said to belong to the Prince since the Reformation and indeed without these the Reformation could not well have been effected and I think are given to them in the fore-quoted Statutes If these Powers are said not to belong to these Princes let them name which of these are not But Lastly such Powers cannot be shewed to have been given or been due to our Kings by the former Laws unless we will believe that the Laws of the Land then contradicted that Obedience which those Princes yielded to the Church or that those Princes even when most fallen out with the Church would voluntarily forego so many of their rights Thus much to the first Defence used by Bishop Bramh. §. 35. n. 3. That Henry the Eighth's Statutes were only declarative of the former Laws For the second thing said by him That King Henry the Eighth by these Statutes claimed only an External Coactive Power in Causes Ecclesiastical in foro contentioso if by External Coactive Power he meaneth the exercising of all those Powers which I have but now named with Coaction and the Material Sword then the Secular Prince seems to assume and exercise several of those Powers which are only the Churches rights But if by Coactive Power he meaneth only the Kings calling of the Clergy together to consult of Church Affairs and his assisting with the Secular Sword their Constitutions and Decrees and making their Laws his own by Temporal Mulcts and Penalties and compelling particular Clergy as well as Laity to do that which the Church declares to be their duty compelling I say with outward force for herein the Bishop seemeth to place the Kings Power in Spiritual matters See Schism Guarded p. 93. How can the Pope saith he pretend to any Coactive power in England where the Power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King And p. 92. The Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons c But they had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his Will the uttermost they could do was to separate him from their Communion And p. 166 Who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison and punish them for not appearing without his leave Likewise p. 168. and compare them with his former
Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates And of this Act such use was made tho possibly beyond the true intention of it that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below § 145. Which saith he being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which Estate they have continued without any legal interruption from that time to this Thus He. Now to go on Consequently we find in 2. Edw 6.1 c. the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer c therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. And in Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons who shall offend against this Act and Statute Which Clause by vertue of this Act and the like implies that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence or ought to excommunicate in all matters wherein the King and Parliament command it Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act forementioned p. 44. § 26. 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction there ascribed to the King or Queen involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication as well as others not for the King to exercise this himself but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute or not execute it so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King contrary to the Second and Third Thesis And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws may not correct what they judge Heresies Errors Vices c without the Kings consent had thereto See the Acts set down before § 31 32 33 c. it is but reasonable that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent for not obeying such Laws or for being thought guilty of such Crimes And this is the reason I suppose of Dr. Heylins Observation Hist of Reform p. 94. That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped that it was scarce able to fly abroad the Sentence of Excommunication wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward and of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England § 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3 and 4. Edw. 6.11 c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons half Seculars to be nominated by him as was done in Henry the Eighth's days in 35. Hen. 8.16 c. 27. Hen. 8.15 c. 25.19 c. who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church and these reformed Laws only established by a major part of them and published by the Kings Proclamation thence forward to stand in force The Statute runs thus Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal therefore you see the Statutes concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12 c. above-mentioned yet the same as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes having not of long time been put in ure nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted c that the Kings Majesty shall from henceforth during Three years have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy whereof Four to be Bishops and Sixteen of the Temporalty whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used and to gather order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought to his Majesty his said Council and them or the more part of them convenient to be used practiced or set forth within this his Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall by vertue of this present Act be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and no other Any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding § 42 Again we find in the same Act Six Prelates and Six others such as the King should nominate delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests and this devised by them and set forth under the Great Seal to be used and none other The words are these Forasmuch as that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties dominions some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests be it therefore Enacted that such Form as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law by the King to be appointed or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used and none other any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Here the King and Parliament assume power to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church and by their Delegates to constitute and by their sole Act to authorize new without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome and his Authority Power and Jurisdiction And I shall never consent nor
to them That as for himself whatsoever he had pretended his Conscience was fraught with the Religion of his Fathers but being blinded with ambition he had been contented to make wrack of his Conscience by temporizing c. Which calls to my mind likewise the death of Cromwel the great Agent for Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days who then renounced the Doctrines in this time called Heresies and took the people to witness That he dyed in the Catholick Faith of the Holy Church and doubted not in any Sacrament thereof i. e. I suppose as the Doctrine thereof was delivered in those times to be seen in the Necessary Doctrine before mentioned See Fox pag. 1086. comp Lord Herbert p. 462. As for those of the Council who thus complyed not they were after some time expelled as Bishop Tonstal Wriothsley the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel Goodwin p. 242. And as the Kings chief Governors in the Council so his Under Tutors who had the nearest influence upon him Dr. Cox and Sir John Cheek were men much inclined to the Reformation the one whereof in Queen Elizabeth's days Was made Bishop of Ely the other being imprisoned in Queen Mary's days and upon it abjuring the reformed Religion afterward saith Goodwin pag. 287. became so repentant for it that out of extremity of grief he shortly languished and dyed Such were his nearest Governors And the Complexion of his Parliament for he had but one all his days continued by Prorogation from Session to Session § 105. n. 2. till at last it ended in the death of the King you may learn from Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 48. The Parliament saith he consisted of such Members as disagreed amongst themselves in respect of Religion yet agreed well enough together in one common Principle which was to serve the present time and preserve themselves For tho a great part of the Nobility and not a few of the chief Gentry in the House of Commons were cordially affected to the Church of Rome yet were they willing to give way to all such Acts and Statutes as were made against it out of a fear of losing such Church-lands as they were possessed of if that Religion should prevail and get up again And for the rest who either were to make or improve their fortunes there is no question to be made but that they came resolved to further such a Reformation as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends Thus he As for the Kings Supremacy how far now some of the complying Clergy extended or acknowledged the just power thereof § 105. n. 3. even as to Ordination and Excommunication and administring the Word and Sacraments I think I cannot more readily shew you than by setting down the Queries proposed concerning these things in the first year of this Kings Reign to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and other Bishops and Learned Men when assembled at Windsor for establishing a publick Order for Divine Service and the Arch-Bishops answer to them printed lately by Mr. Stilling fleet out of a Manuscript of this Arch-Bishop Iren. 2. Par. 8 chap. The first Query is Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given them of God To which the Arch-Bishop answers to the King first in general That all Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their Subjects as well concerning the administration of Gods word for the cure of Souls as concerning the ministration of things Political That the Ministers of Gods word under his Majesty be die Bishops Parsons c. That the said Ministers be appointed in every State by the Laws and Orders of Kings That in the admission of many of these Officers be divers comely Ceremonies used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and seemly fashion That there is no more promise of God that Grace is given in the committing the Ecclesiastical office than it is in the committing the Civil Then he answers more particularly That in the Apostles time when there was no Christian Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods word might be appointed c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundantly the Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometimes the people did choose such as they thought meet thereunto And when appointed by the Apostles the people of their own voluntary will did accept them not for the Supremity Impery or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people ready to obey the advice of good Councellors A second Query is Whether Bishops or Priests were first And if the Priests were first whether then the Priest made the Bishop He answers That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Religion The third Query Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scriptures or no And whether any other i.e. Secular person but only a Bishop may make a Priest He answers A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governors also and that by authority of God committed unto them and the people also by their Election The fourth Query Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and Priest or only appointing to the office be sufficient Answer In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for election or appointing thereto is sufficient The fifth Query Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to conquer certain dominions of Infidels having none but temporal learned men with him it be defended by Gods Law That he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there or no And also make and constitute Priests or no In the next Query which I omit for brevity sake is mentioned also the ministring Baptism and other Sacraments He answers to this and the next That it is not against Gods Law but contrary they ought indeed so to do The seventh Query Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what Crimes And whether they only may excommunicate by Gods law He answers A Bishop or a Priest by the Scriptures is neither commanded nor forbidden to excommunicate But where the Laws of any Region giveth him authority to excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such crimes as the laws have such authority in And where the laws of the Region forbiddeth them there they have none authority at all and they that be no Priests may also excommunicate if the law allow thereunto Thus the Arch-Bishop explains the Kings and Clergies power and right concluding That he doth not temerariously define this his opinion and sentence but remits the Judgment thereof wholly to his Majesty This Text needs no
Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat Regia authoritate editi In the thirty sixth of which Articles is also ratified the second corrected Form of Common-Prayer and the new Form of Ordination in these words Liber qui nuperrimè authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est continens modum formam orandi Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum Ecclesiae quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris maxime a Ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum gratiarum actione accipiendi approbandi posteritati commendandi sunt λ λ And also for the first new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments it must be granted that in the second year and second Parliament of the Kings Reign the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation gave their approbation and consent thereto as appears both by the Kings message to the Rebels of Cornwal where it is said That what-ever was contained in the new Common-Prayer-Book c. was by Parliament established by the whole Clergy agreed by the Bishops of the Realm devised Fox p. 1189 and by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner where it is said yet more fully That after great and serious debating and long conference of the Bishops and other grave and well learned men in the holy Scriptures one uniform Order of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments hath been and is most Godly set forth not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament and of all other the learned men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial Fox p. 1186. And see much-what the same said in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter Fox p. 1212. 6. ν That such consent and such Constitutions of the Clergy of this Realm being not to be denied at least it will follow that the Reformation as touching the Common-Prayer-Book from the second year of his Reign and as touching the other Articles of Religion from the fifth was regular and canonical as being the act of the Clergy § 111 Thus have I here put you together the ordinary defence excepting the ultimum refugium The Reply thereto That Princes may reform in matters of Religion and of Faith without and against the major part of their Clergy of which hereafter which is made for the regularity of Edward the Sixth's Reformation To which now consider with me what it seemeth may reasonably be replyed tho some things cannot be so fully cleared till I have given you the rest of the Narration of this Kings Proceedings to which therefore I must refer you for them Reply to α To α then I answer That the Arch-Bishop acted not in the setting forth of these Injunctions as the Metropolitan but as one of the Sixteen Councellors whom Henry the Eighth nominated for the Government of his Son and in the same manner as he would have acted had he been Bishop of Asaph or Bangor Neither are the Injunctions grounded at all upon the Metropolitan's assent but on the Kings Supremacy nor do they make any mention of him or his authority but only of the Council in general and of their advice as you may see in what is before related § 108. Neither were those Canons being of humane constitution only conceived either by King Council or this Arch-Bishop to be of any force under this Regal Supremacy But secondly Suppose them in force and these Injunctions published by the Metropolitan's authority yet is not such authority made valid in such things when single without the concurrence of his Bishops by any such Canon For the very same Canon that saith Nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant Episcopi c. saith also Nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum Paraeciis Sic enim unanimitas erit See Can. Apost 35. Thirdly lastly every thing set forth by the advice of this Council is not necessarily so by the Arch-Bishops advice or vote because he is one of the Council For here the vote of the major part who were all Lay-men save himself and one Dr. Wotton if Bishop Tonstal's vote was cast out tho it were contrary to his vote bears the name of the whole § 112 To β. To β. That the advice of many Bishops was used in many of the Kings Injunctions unless in that touching the new Form of Common-Prayer is not evident that the advice of some Bishops was used in all is credible but those such as were presumed to be of the same inclinations with the King and Council as whatsoever colour the State is of it cannot want some Clergy of the same complexion For Example Cranmer and Ridley now called to consutation but Gardiner Tonstal Bonner Heath c. shut out and in Queen Mary's days contra That the advice of many Bishops used is not sufficient for to impose Laws on the rest where all have a decisive vote and where the legislative power lies in the major part viz. in a Synod to prevent Innovations by such Prelates as are singular in their opinions § 113 To γ. That King Edward claimed by his Supremacy according to the power which To γ. as I have shewed above § 39. c. was judged then to belong to it the giving of Laws to his Clergy not only for rectifying their practice but Doctrines only using the assistance of such Divines or other learned men as he thought fit to single out for this purpose as you may see In his prescribing the Doctrine of the Homilies unto them and also Before §. 108. In his injoyning them that whatsoever else should come from him they should see and cause it faithfully to be observed In his silencing the Ministery till something were drawn up by certain Bishops and other learned men congregated by his authority that should put an end to all controversies in Religion before § 109 In the stile of his Proclamation before the order of the Communion where he saith We would not have our Subjects so much to mislike our judgment as tho we could not discern what was to be done c. God be praised we know both what by his word is meet to be redressed and have an earnest mind by the advice of whom of our most dear Uncle and other of our privy Council with all diligence to set forth the same and In the last Articles to the Bishop of Winchester drawn up saith the Kings Diary by Bishop Ridley Pullâ—r 8. l. and Secretary Sir W. Peters which required his Subscription to several points of
before § 65. and caused Arch-Bishop Whitgift to exact of all those that entred into the Clergy a Subscription that they would use it and no other Form Cambd Eliz. An. Dom. 1583. Ecclesiastical Can. 36. Which Subscription the party that opposed this Book at last prevailing was remitted by the Parliament 1640 and since that I need not tell you what it hath suffered The old Form supplanted the Mass the pew Form the old and then the old one being raised again out of its ashes in the new Scotch Liturgy which began all the troubles had almost brought in the late tumults a fatal overthrow both upon the new one and upon it self Thus much from § 143. concerning this Kings new Liturgies § 164 By vertue of such a Supremacy the King conceiving he had power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws In the abrogatio of several Ecclesiastical law coâ—â—eâ—ning Fastâ— Câ—lâ—bacy of the Cleâ—gy c. tho established by former superior Councils appointed the Parliament assenting thereto eight persons amongst whom were two Bishops Crannier and Thirlby and Peter Martyr to prepare this work Who drew up a body of them which was then made publick and since reprinted 1640. But indeed it appeareth not that this Reformation of them was ever ratified by King Parliament or Convocation See the Preface to Reform Leg. Eccl. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliaments authority and dispensed with whom he thought fit for not observing them See Stat. 2 3. Edw. 19. chap. Wherein after a Preface declaring That the Kings Subjects now had a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel and true word of God shewed declared and opened thro the mercy of God by the hands of the Kings Majesty and his most noble Father and thereby perceived that one day or meat of it self is not more holy more pure or more clean than another c. as if the former Church which they left had taught them otherwise after this Preface I say the King with the consent of Parliament first ordains That all manner of Statutes Laws and Constitutions concerning any manner of fasting or abstinence from any kinds of meats shall from the first of May next ensuing loose their force and strength and be void and of none effect Then sets down the days upon which he will have abstinence from flesh observed upon the Penalty of paying Ten Shillings and suffering ten days Imprisonment except those who being not enfeebled with age or sickness shall receive a licence to eat flesh from the King or his Successors For you must know that the maker of a Law hath power to dispense with it But here note that only abstinence from flesh is enjoyned on those days by this Statute not Fasting nor is Fasting enjoyned by any other Statute that I can find save only on Holy-day-Eves by a Statute made two or three years after Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.3 â— Neither is there any obligation for the observation of either fasting or abstinence on these days by any express Canon of this Church reformed when as now the former Church-Laws concerning this were by the Kings Supremacy nulled in this Act but only by Act of Parliament and the end of such abstinence in the Parliament Act 5. Eliz. 5. c. professed to be only upon a Politick consideration the increase of Fishermen and Mariners c. And not for any Superstition saith that Act to be maintained in the choice of meats or as if such forbearing of flesh were of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be Tho King Edward in the fore-cited Statute I confess mentions partly another end viz. because that due and godly abstinence is a means to vertue and to subdue mens bodies to their Soul and Spirit And I doubt not that many devout persons in this Church holding themselves bounden to the former Ecclesiastical Constitutions notwithstanding the Kings abrogation have still observed this duty in obedience thereto See likewise 5 6. Edw. 6. 3. c. the same Regal authority appointing the Holy-days And these things are done in Parliament without the least mentioning or referring to any Synod § 165 Likewise by vertue of such Supremacy the King with consent of Parliament ordained Staâ— 2 3. Edw 6.21 c. That all Laws positive Canons Constitutions heretofore made by man only which prohibit Marriage to any Spiritual Person who by Gods Law may lawfully marry shall be utterly void and of none effect and this upon consideration as it is in the Preface of the same Act of such uncleanness of living and other great inconveniences which have followed of compelled chastity as if the Church compelled any person to such chastity except hypothetically if he will take on him such a profession Or as if in this the Church enjoyned any thing which she first stated not to be in every ones power to observe if using a just endeavour Now whereas it is said in 5.6 Edw. 6.12 That the slanderous reproach of holy Matrimony i. e. of Priests doth redound to the dishonour of the Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same Marriage of Clergy to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by their common assent as by the subscription of their hands Such assent as likewise that which they say to the same purpose in the 42 Articles Art 31. no way opposeth the Law of the Church For things most lawful by Gods Law as Marriage of the Clergy is by the Church allowed to be yet may be lawfully prohibited by the Church Whose Law in this matter the Clergy of this land justified in the third and fourth of the Six Articles Neither if they had here opposed it as they do not would their sentence be of any force because contrary to the Constitution of former superiour Councils § 166 By vertue of such Supremacy the King in the Sixth year of his Reign published by his authority 42 Articles of Religion containing several matters of Faith Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion dâ—fferent from the foâ—mer dectâ—â—â—eâ— of the Church which are there stated contrary to the definitions of former superiour Councils Which Articles are said indeed to have been first decreed and agreed on by a Synod of the Clergy held at London the Title presixed to them being this Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. Dom. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat regiâ authoritate in lucem editi But this I cannot thus easily concede Where whether these Articles were passed by any Synod notwithstanding this Title Thus far indeed I grant that they seem to be compiled or consented to by some members of
unto him and having their consent and direction in it may in case of intermission or corruption restore such practice to its primitive lustre tho he do it against the major part of his Clergy or Synod as you may see p. 83. 3. He intimates That if the Reformation be in such point of Doctrine as hath been before defined in a General Council or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced the King consulting with some of his learned Bishops may enjoyn it without or against a Synod 4. But he saith That if the Reformation be in such points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner the King only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted So he saith p. 85. That the King cannot determine Heresies From this by necessary consequence it follows That if any point of doctrine hath been determined by a former General Council I add or lawful superior Council the King neither against nor without I add nor with the major part of his Clergy can reform or establish the contrary of such doctrine § 207 Now to reflect op the Drs. Limitations Concerning the two last I leave it to your judgment whether in the instances made above the contrary to several doctrines determined by former lawful General or other superior Councils have not been established by our reforming Princes without or also against the major part of their Clergy And again whether other doctrines not determined by any former lawful Council yet have not thus also without any such consent been established by them Both which Dr. Heylin condemneth Again concerning all these limitations I ask when all or the major part of Clergy affirmeth that such things are not corruptions in manners nor abuses in Government that such practices are not primitive nor universal that such doctrines are not formerly so determined and none or a smaller part of the said Clergy saith the contrary How will Dr. Heylin here direct the Kings Supremacy Will he here allow him after hearing all to follow his own judgment Or that of the fewer against his Synod or the major part thereof It seems in some things he will not allow it See Limitation the fourth and it seemeth unreasonable to be allowed in any of the rest For why should not a Synod discern corruption in manners as well as he or some few Or why may not he mistake and miscall their reason passion or partiality But if the Prince follow the major part of his Clergy in their judgment of what are corruptions what are formerly defined c. then cannot the Prince be said or supposed to reform such corruptions c. against this major part whose judgment in this Reformation of them he followeth § 208 The last I shall propose to your considering is Dr. Fern Of Doctor Pern Exam. Cha. 9. c. 19. §. p. 290. who speaketh somewhat more particularly in this matter He first affirmeth indeed in behalf of the Clergy that the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline And That they have a coercive power in a Spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for Spiritual binding and loosing will reach And that this power is coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church I suppose therefore upon Christian Princes also if obstinately gain-saying And 20. § He quoteth 1. Eliz. 1. That the judging of Heresy is restrained for Heresies past to the Declaration of the first General Councils and for such as shall arise to the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation And § 15. he saith It is a mistake to think that the Prince by his supreme power in Spiritual things is made supreme Judge of Faith and decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Again Ibid. he affirmeth that the Prince's giving publick establishment to the doctrine defined by the Clergy and evidenced to him is not in order to our believing as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us in saying our belief follows the State but to our secure ind free profession and exercise of Religion For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe as Pastors of the Church are 1. Cor. 3.9 And § 21. That we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church who have commission to do it in order to our believing and must yield obedience to the establishment of the Sovereign either by doing and conforming thereunto or by suffering for not doing according thereunto And § 25. That it is the office of the Pastors of the Church to evidence what is truth and conformable to Scripture and that in order both to our and to the Prince's believing Again § 21. he affirmeth that the immediate and ordinary judgment of matters of Religion belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that a secondary judgment is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Laws that which is evidenced to him upon the judgment and advice of the Pastors of the Church or as § 23. for his being satisfied that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the law of Christ before he use or apply his authority to the publick establishment of it and this upon a double reason the first of which is In respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss as the Kings of Israel and Judah were § 209 But then he saith these things further in behalf of the Supremacy of the Prince which seem to reduce the Clergy's power into a very narrow compass and to render it uneffective toward the Subjects of the Church unless thro the coacting of the Prince He saith then 1. That Princes are not bound to follow the directions of the Clergy any further than they are evidenced to them See 9. c. § 21. Princes are not meer Executioners of the determinations and decrees of the Church Pastors nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion whatsoever they define and propound for such But they are to do their work so as it may by the demonstration of truth be evidenced to the Sovereign Power That Princes are not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod where they fear the Synod will not go aright 2. c. 8. § Reformation of Gods Worship saith he may be
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 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 of 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 skin 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 reverently 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 §. 5. p. 12. 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 §. 7. p. 14. 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 §. 28. p. 36. 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 §. 16. p. 20. 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 * See Sidney's Trial. 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 Apologetick 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
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 * De Conc. l 6. c. 34. par 2. Nunquam discedere oportet ab hac certissima Regula deliberationes Ecclesiae Gallicanae considerari non posse aliter quam velut consilium Regi datum easque executioni non posse mandari absque consensu confirmatione ejus 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 * Tanquam caput comme Chef Ibid. Head * An ex co quod Suprema Canonum protectio ad Regem pertinet sequatur eum jubere posse ut observentur non expectata etiam sententia Ecclesiae Gallicanae And in another place proposing to himself this Quaestion * Certum quidem est earum constitutionum obseruationum fore sanctiorem si conderentur cum generali Cleri consensu quoniam unusquisque eam rem obtinere modis omnibus cupit quam ipse suo judicio comprobaverit Nihilominus aeque certum est Regem ex sententia Concilii sui quod auget aut minuit prout ei lubet posse latis edictis decernere ut Canones observentur ac circum stantias modos necessarios addere ad faciliorem eorum executionem sive etiam ad veram eorum mentem explicandam eosque accommodare ad utilitatem Regni lib. 6. c. 36. par 1. 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 * Utuntur adhuc eo jure Reges Christianissimi Ib par 3. 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 Author 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 * Collect. Constitut Imperial T. 3. p. 373 Pii quarti imperium detractamus quaecunque sint ejus judicia sententiae rejicimus respuimus contemnimus Et quanquam Patres Sanctissimi vestra omnium Religio Vita eruditio magnae apud Nos semper fuerit erit Autoritatis cum tamen nihil à vobis sed omnia magis Romae quam Tridenti agantur quae hic publicantur magis Pii Quarti placita quam Concilii Tridentini decreta jure aestimentur denunciamus protestamur quaecunque in hoc conventu hoc est solo Pii nutu voluntate decernuntur publicantur ea neque Regem Christianissimum probaturum neque Ecclesiam Gallicanam pro decreto Oecumenici Concilii habituram Interea quotquot estis Galliae Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Doctores Theologi Vos omnes hinc abire Rex Christianissimus jubet redituros ut primum Deus Optimus Maximus Ecclesiae Catholicae in Generalibus Conciliis antiquam formam libertatem restituerit Regi autem Christianissimo suam dignitatem Majestatem 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 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
literis excitaverat ipse Sanctus adversus Regem pro Ecclesia starent redarguerent comminarentur oâ—â—entantes quae in arcu sagittae paratae erant ad feriendum censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes ut potius adversus eundem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent telis oppeterent jurgiorum in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum Bar. An. A. C. 1167. Margin A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton de tribus Thomis in Thoma Cant. * Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tecte postulavit quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia aperte u surpavit nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurp'd viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England and again * Quid hoc est aliud nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papâ— what was this but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects So that according to this Author Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Popes Encroachments viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edv. 3. Stat de provisoribus 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1.2 4. stat 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6.8 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our * Cokes Inst l. 4. c. â—4 Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19. concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm * 1. Eliz. c. 1. and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all forreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Jurisdictions of the same Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiasticall Where 1st As to the title of Head of the Church we find that * Twisd c. 5. par 2. King Edgar was reputed and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum the Vicar of Christ and by his Laws and Canons assur'd the world he did not in vain assume those titles * Chap. 5. par 14. c. 6. par 8. That our Forefathers stil'd their Kings Patrons Defenders Governours Tutors and Protectors of the Church And the Kings Regimen of the Church is thus exprest by King Edward the Confessor in his laws Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriosis defendat Leg. Edv. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a priviledge delegated by him what he claim'd as a right deriv'd immediately from God * Vobis posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae justa sunt To you saith that Pope to the Confessor and your Successours the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power They challenge from St. Peter himself to be * 1 Pet. II. 13. Supreme and from St. Paul that * Rom. XIII 1. every Soul should be subject to them And the extent of their Regal power may be learn'd from St. Austin who teaches us * In hoc Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in Regno suo bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem Aug. contra Crescâ—n l. 3. c. 51. that the Divine right of Kings as such authorized them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion In pursuance of which 2ly As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy namely the Keyes of Order and Jurisdiction so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices is evident to any one who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant A Collection of the Laws made by Ina Alfred Edward Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Ethelred Canutus and others we have publish'd by Mr. Lambard in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith Baptism Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops Priests Marriage Observance of Lent appointing of Festivals and the like And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Autority which our Editor cannot justly decline I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Publish'd in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford in the Name of the Alumni of that Society This Author speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical makes this Inference from them * Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur quod ex iis constat etiam illis temporibus Reges Saxonicos Alfredum Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos quam in Laicos neque Ecclesiam quae in ipsorum ditione esset esse quid peregrinum vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam quod Anselmus Beckettus aliique deinceps insecuti acriter eontenderunt Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par 12. These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation because from them it is evident that the
as any one in the Vindication of the Churches rights and Yet He tells us q Epilog Pag. 391. 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 r Church Government pag. 390. 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 ſ Church Government pag. 391. 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 t Ductor Dub. l. 3. c. 3. r. 4. That the Supreme Civil-power is also Supreme Governour over all Persons and in all Causes u Ibid. r. 5. Hath a Legislative power in Affairs of Religion and the Church x Ibid. r. 7. Hath Jurisdiction in causes not only Ecclesiastical but also Internal and Spiritual y Ibid. r. 7. n. 9. Hath autority to convene and dissolve all Synods Ecclesiastical z Ibid. r. 8. 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 a Ibid. r. 8. n. 6. but that there may happen a case in which Princes may and must refuse to confirm the Synodical decrees Sentences and Judgments of Ecclesiastics b Ibid. l. 3. c. 4. r. 8. 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 c Bp. Br. Works Tom. 1. p. 88. 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 d Ibid. p. 76. 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 * Educ p. 98. 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 e Ibid. p. 156. 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 f E I K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adv. To the Pr. of Wales 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 g Ibid. cap. 17. 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 Judgment 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 h Adv. to the Pr. of Wales that the best Profession of Religion is that of the Church of England adds I would have your own Judgment 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 requuired 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 i Serm. of the right of Assemblies Andrews to this Quaestion What say you to the 300 Years 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
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
The Act here descanted upon expir'd with King Henry and it will be time enough to consider it when it is reviv'd again If Prohibition of appeals to Rome and making the King the last Appellee be an Act of the Reformation § 33 it has been prov'd that King Henry the 2d and all his Bishops except Becket were Reformers § 34 Some Acts of Parliament are cited in the 34th Paragraph which were repeal'd by King Edward and yet make up part of that accumulative charge which is laid on the Reformation Even the Six Articles are urg'd which drain'd the blood of so many Reformers But the Protestants in justifying the King's Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching any thing contrary to the six Articles c. That is all those who own an Autority must justify the abuse of it They who obey the just Commands of their Prince must obey him when he commands what is unjust Father Walsh acknowledges I suppose the Pope's Supremacy but he thinks himself severely dealt with when he is censur'd for not being a Rebel Having quoted several Acts he comes to reflect upon them a little viz. for six Pages First he copes with Arch Bishop Bramhal but I should be unjust to that Prelate's memory if in so unequal an engagement I should think he wanted my Assistance What is said by the Bishop is not said only but demonstrated This Author has urg'd nothing against him but what he might have fetch'd from the Bishop's own Confutation of Serjeant The Question here discust has already been debated in the a p. 20. Animadversions and if the Reader desires to be farther satisfied I cannot more oblige him then by sending him to the Most Reverend and Learned Author He will find there a just and solid Vindication of a Noble Cause which suffers when it falls into weak management and is made part of an Occasional Pamphlet Having catechiz'd the Bishop he next canvaseth that Statute of much concernment that the King shall have power from time to time to Visit Repress and Reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spiritual Autority lawfully may be Reform'd But this Act will be without the reach of our Author's cavils if it be observ'd That the Power by which the King Visits and Reforms is not Spiritual but Political That a Power is not given him to declare Errors but to repress them that the determination of Heresie is by Act of Parliament limited to the Autority of Scriptures 4 first General Councils and assent of the Clergy in their Convocation that the King hath not all the Power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Autority may be lawfully exercis'd for he has not the power of the Keys but a power given him to reform all Heresies by Civil Authority which the Church can do by her Spiritual That it is impossible it should be prov'd that this power of Visiting and Reforming is a necessary Invasion of the Office of Spiritual Pastors because when the Prince doth it by them commanding them to do the Work and exacting of them a discharge of their duty He doth this without Usurping their Office and yet doth it by a power distinct from and independent on their's And lastly that the Prince is oblig'd to take care that all Acts of reforming be executed by their proper Ministers because else he transgresses the Power prescrib'd in this Statute so to reform Errors as may be most to the pleasure of Almighty God The Application is obvious and will satisfie the Reader that our Author must part with a whole Paragraph if He will as he pretends §. 35. n. 4. remove the Mis-interpretation of this Act. § 36 The next Paragraph makes remarks upon a Proclamation and speech of King Henry's and some words of Cromwel which were very justifiable if it were either necessary that we must defend them or the Defence not obvious to every one who thinks His Conclusion of this Chapter amounts to no more then that Bishop Gardiner was too great a Courtier and Calvin too credulous § 37 One was gross in his sense of the Supremacy and the other zealous against it so misrepresented Which will then begin to be pertinent when it is prov'd that Gardiner was a Protestant and Calvin a son of the Church of England There is so little in this Chapter which affects the Reformation that it cannot be worth recapitulating A Reply to Chapter the 4th § 38 NOW he comes to the times of Edward the 6th Now then he first begins to remember the Title of his Book Here he finds all the Supremacy confirm'd to Edward the Sixth which was formerly conceded to Henry the 8th And yet the Reformers are accus'd of Innovation for continuing what they found establish'd by Roman-Catholics he complains of the Repeal of several Statutes made in confirmation of the Determinations of the Church § 39 But by the Church is meant the Church of Rome and it is no great Crime in a Reforming Prince that he did not think himself oblig'd to punish with Death all her Determinations These Statutes now repeal'd were reviv'd by Q. Mary and again repeal'd by Q. Elizabeth Which amounts to no more then that Q. Mary was a Roman-Catholic and Q. Elizabeth a Catholic Reformed Hence he infers by way of Corollary that the trial of Heresies and Hereticks by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy-Church was admitted or excluded here according as the Prince was Catholic or Reform'd This sentence carries two faces and is capable of two very different Constructions Either it may signifie that the Clergy were or were not the tryers of Heretics according as the Prince was Romanist or Reformed ‖ and then it is false Or that the Determinations of Holy Church You must understand the C. of Rome were or were not the Rule of such Trials according as the Prince was of the Roman or Reform'd Communion and then it is wonderfully impertinent § 40 This seeker goes on and finds it affirm'd in an Act of Parliament that All Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is deriv'd from the King as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England But if he had pleas'd He might have found too that this Act is repeal'd and that therefore we are under no Obligation to defend it But if Jurisdiction be understood in the limited sense before explain'd this Act has no poison in it And so it will be understood by any one who consults the Context But this Act has been so largely and distinctly discuss'd by a Learned a Bishop Sanderson's Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal power Casuist that a farther disquisition of it is needless The change of Election of Bishops by Conge d'eslire into Collation by Letters-Patents is a bad instance of the King's Supremacy for if such collation infers a Regal Supremacy those who have read that Bishopricks were originally Donative not Elective will be apt to conclude that the King
but I know not of any Henrician Creed incorporated into our Faith The Romanists have a Creed Younger by some Years then King Henry but nothing is a part of our Faith but what sprung up with Infant-Christianity It is therefore a wild Inference that because we own the King to be Supreme Head of the Church therefore We make the Christian Religion mutable Did we make Acts of Parliament the Rule of our Faith there would be ground for such an Objection For then an Article of Faith might be enacted and repeal'd at pleasure and He who was Orthodox in one Session might become an Heretic in the next But Scripture is the Rule of our Faith a Rule like it's Author unchangeable the same yesterday to day and for ever The Christian indeed is obnoxious to the power of the Prince but Christianity is without the reach of his Sword Nor has the King this influence over the external profession of Religion as he is the Ecclesiastical Head but as he is the Civil Supreme God has intrusted him as such with the power of the Sword with a command indeed to use it for the protection of the true Religion but with a natural liberty still of using it for the Protection of a false This Author I confess has a remedy against this namely some Temporal coactive power lodg'd in the Pope in order to dissolve upon Occasion the coactive power of the Prince But we do not envy him this Catholicon against Innovation Passive Obedience is our Principle and if this renders the legal Establishment of our Religion more obnoxious to the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate Yet it better secures our common Christianity Q. Mary therefore may repeal King Edward's Laws but unless she could repeal Christ's Law too Ridley's and Latimer's Religion will still be the same The only difference is that the Faith which before they defended from the Pulpit they now more effectually propagate at the Stake To conclude this point whilst Princes have the power of the Sword and Subjects are oblig'd to Non-resistance the Supreme Governor will have an influence over the outward State of Religion and He that complains of this repines against the Methods of God's providence It is no blemish therefore on the Reform'd Religion which is here dwelt upon by this Author that it went forward or backward under King Henry according as his different passions or Interests inclin'd him Whilst Q. Ann liv'd it had indifferent success saith Fox Here then saith our witty Observer the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and manag'd the Affairs of Religion accordingly Now admitting this were a truth which had escap'd him Yet the curious Editor I doubt not amongst his Collections has met with a Medal representing Donna Olympia with the Pope's Mitre on her Head and St. Peter's Keys in her Hands and on the Reverse the Pope with his Head drest like a Lady and a Spindle in his hand Be it also true that Cromwel a Laic had the total management of Ecclesiastical affairs under King Henry Yet any one Who is conversant in History knows that the administration of the Popedom has been in the Hands of more obnoxious Favourites § 86 What is said in the next Paragraph is not of more moment here then when first mention'd in Paragraph the 19th § 87 By Virtue of such Supremacy he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses Our prolix Author who never spares his own Labour or his Reader 's Patience has enlarg'd upon this point for 12 Paragraphs and is very copious against Sacrilege But I do not see how our Cause is concern'd in this charge Avarice and Sacrilege are as great Sins in our Homilies as they are in the Popish Canons and Cranmer and Ridley were as severe against robbing the Church as this Declaimer We are no more concern'd to defend King Henry's rapines then the Lusts some have charged him with Were the Suppression of Abbies as great a crime as it is here under false colours represented I do not see why we are more oblig'd to plead in it's favour than this Writer would think himself bound because he asserts the power of the Roman Patriarch to justifie the foul and unparallel'd enormities of those who have sat in St. Peter's chair But were the dissolution of Monasteries represented impartially it would be easie were it necessary to give it a fair appearance and it must be at last confest that the fault of King Henry was not so much in taking away those foundations of Superstition as in not applying all the Revenues as he did some and had done more if the Reformers had had more Influence over him to Uses truly Religious By Virtue of such a Supremacy he made orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage §. 99.100 of Fasts of Holydays of Election and Consecration of Bishops and Challeng'd a power of abrogating several other Ceremonies It ought to have been shewn that any Constitutions concerning these did ever oblige us but such as either were made and ordained within this Realm or such other as were induced into the Realm by sufferance consent and custom for until this Proposition laid down in the Statute a 25. of Hen. 8.27 c. be disprov'd the Assumption there that the State hath power to dispence with it's own Laws will be unshaken Ecclesiastical Canons with this Author is another expression for Papal Decrees the Autority therefore which supported them being justly taken away it is no wonder if they fell with it Amongst the Rites which King Henry commands to be observ'd till he shall be pleas'd to alter them Fox reckons paying of Tithes Where this Annotator observes that Tithes are here conceiv'd to be in the disposal of the Supreme Head of the English Church Now whether King Henry thought Tithes to be jure divino or not doth not concern the Reformation But what is here said of payment of Tithes doth not prove that he thought them alienable from the Clergy For he might by his Laws regulate the payment of them tho' he did not think them disposable in this Author's sense Several Statutes were made in his Reign for the better securing this Right of the Clergy In them a 27. Hen. 8. c. 20. Tithes are said to be due to God and the Church the detainers of them to have no regard of their b 32. Hen. 8. c. 7. duties to Almighty God And the c Ref. Leg. Tit. de Decimis cap. 1. Reformatio legum derives the Clergy's original right to them from the Laws of Christ § 101 By Virtue of such Supremacy he without any consent of the Clergy by his Vice-gerent Cromwel order'd that English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church The translation of the Bible was petition'd by the 2 d Bur. V. 1. p. 195. Houses of Convocation and the publication of it was included in that request This Act therefore had the consent of the
Order they had sufficient Autority to Consecrate him As for the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs it has no Divine Institution it rose upon the division of Provinces and the Kings of Western Churches did first give those Preheminences to some Towns and Sees a Vindic. of Ord. p. 77. c. Pamph. But then might not She at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction which he held only on her gift A. Bp. Br. We hold our Benefices by humane right our Offices of Priests and Bishops both by divine right and humane right But put the case we did hold our Bishopricks only by humane right is it one of Your Cases of Conscience that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing which they hold by humane right If one Man take from another that which he holds justly by the Law of Man he is a thief and a robber by the Law of God a Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 11. p. 489. Pamph. But the Autority of these Ordainers standing good one or two Bishops is not a competent Number for Ordination A. Bp. Br. The Commission for their Consecration limited the Consecrators to four when the Canons of the Catholic Church require but three Three had been enough to make a valid Ordination yea to make a Canonical Ordination b Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc 5. c 5. p. 451. Pamph. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops as it was made in Edward the 6th 's time so it was revok'd by Synod in Queen Mary's days and by no Synod afterwards restor'd before their Ordination Dr. Burn. It is a common place and has been handled by many Writers how far the Civil Magistrate may make Laws and give commands about Sacred things The Prelates and the Divines by the Autority they had from Christ and the warrant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church made the Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal and the King and Parliament who are vested with the Supreme Legislative power added their Autority to them to make them Obligatory on the Subject Let these Men declare upon their Consciences if there be any thing they desire more earnestly than such an Act for Authorizing their own Forms and would they make any Scruple to accept of it if they might have it a Bur. Vindic. of Ordin p. 51. c. Pamph. But this Form was revok'd also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days and not by any Act restor'd till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops viz in 8. Eliz. 1. upon Bonner's urging hereupon that the Queen 's were no Legal Bishops Pamphlet it self in the next Page The new Ordinal when Arch-Bishop Parker was to be Consecrated by it did not want sufficient Lay-license having the Queen's nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it for which see Bishop Bramhal Pamph. For such Considerations as these it seems it was that the Queen in her Mandate for the Ordination of her new Arch-Bishop Parker was glad out of her Spiritual Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining to dispense and give them leave to dispense to themselves with all former Church-Laws which should be transgrest in the electing and consecrating and investing of this Bishop A. Bp. Br. There is a double power Ecclesiastical of Order and of Jurisdiction Which two are so different the one from the other as themselves both teach and practise that there may be true Orders without Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and an actual Jurisdiction without Holy Orders He leaves the Orders in the plain field to busy himself about the power of Jurisdiction which is nothing to the Question That which the Statute calls the Autority of Jurisdiction is the coercive and compulsory power of summoning the King's Subjects by Processes which is indeed from the Crown The Kings of England neither have any power of the Keys nor can derive them to others He need not fear our deriving our Orders from them a Tom. 4. Disc 7. p. 1000. As for the Dispensative clause it doth not extend at all to the Institution of Christ or any Essential of Ordination nor to the Canons of the Universal Church but only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of England The Commissioners authoriz'd by these Letters Patent to Confirm and Consecrate Arch-Bishop Parker did make use of the Supplentes or Dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a Political Act as appears by the words of the Confirmation but not in the Consecration which is a purely Spiritual Act and belongeth merely to the Key of Order b Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 453. Pamph. Notwithstanding this Regal Dispensation a Statute was afterwards made 8. Eliz. 1. c. to take away all Scruple Ambiguity or doubt concerning these Consecrations A. Bp. Br. It was only a Declaration of the Parliament that all the Objections which these Men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies and that all the Bishops which had been ordain'd in the Queen's time had been rightly ordain'd according to the Form prescrib'd by the Church of England and the Laws of the Land These Men want no confidence who are not asham'd to cite this Statute in this case c Ibid. p. 439. I have transcrib'd the very words of the Authors to shew the importunity of these Men who are not asham'd to transcribe not only the matter but the very form of those Arguments which have been so often confuted But there is I confess one thing new in this Chapter which seems as if reserv'd for this Writer He would prove that the Queens dispensation relates not to her own Laws but to the Laws of the Catholic Church The words in the Commission are Supplentes c. Siquid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur So that the Clause extends only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of this Kingdom as the Learned a A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 453. Primate understands it But this Author with his wonted ingenuity omits the words per Statuta hujus Regni and then construes the Leges Ecclesiasticas to be the Laws not of the English but the Universal Church A Reply to Chapter the 13th A Reply to his former Chapters has made any Consideration of this needless He supposes he has prov'd that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy and I may be allow'd to suppose that he has not prov'd it He has indeed affirm'd that it had not Synodical Autority under King Edward and Queen Elizabeth and he had not ventur'd much farther had he affirm'd that there never were such Princes In this Chapter he has found Six Protestant Divines who are of Opinion that Princes may in cases extraordinary Lawfully Reform without or against
them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordinations of inferiour Clergy to their superiour Rites Liturgies c. As for the rights of the Secular power he layeth down this Rule p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are All actions civil all publick violations of Justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Infliction of Censures by Excommunication or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory i. e as he saith before to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy or some other way abett the censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law employed for regiment and cure of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth it before p. 239 is the Kings And lastly p. 241. he saith that the Catholick Bishops in time of the Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exteriour Jurisdiction and Power i. e the Royal. See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded p. 61. All which our Kings saith he assume to themselves is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it i. e of that regiment and p. 63 He comments thus on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see the Power is political the Sword is political all is political Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it And p. 92 he saith We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them without taking away I hope any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes And p. 119 We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them laws he means such Laws for observance of which Secular coaction might be used the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needful Doth not this Bishop mean here that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings dominions and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority only that they can use no coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments in the execution of them without his But see below § 22. The Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation See more of this § 35. N. 2. And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith It is coercive and compulsory and corrobatory Power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the external Court of the Church Why or under what pretence to prevent saith he the oppression of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquility of the Common wealth not therefore to examine what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to Gods word for this Princes are to learn from those Courts which belongs to Sovereign Princes Thus he Lastly see the Kings last Paper in the Isle of Wight p 3. where it is said That tho the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over mens persons or estates no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure Yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government so Christian men do still Princes and all they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons in receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining witnesses judging of crimes against Gods law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper enjoyning Penancies upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. Now I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Canons the same Church Discipline casting out of the Church or Excommunication c. they are and must be allowed still in Christian States being things which as Bishop Carleton saith Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done and these are means absolutely necessary Convening for the making of Canons Knowing the Fact for Excommunication therefore in case the Christian Prince will not call them they may assemble themselves when the Church's necessities require such Canons and when the Christian Secular Courts will not they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency but this in order to Church punishments only When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathenism i. e do these things without their leave against their prohibitions All the Plea that a Secular State subjecting it self to the Church can make for medling in such Spiritual affairs seems to be this that the Church shall not be troubled now as formerly to do all because the State with its more awing power will do something for it Which
he discovered the King's Affections settled on Anne Bullen one inclined to Lutheranisme See Fox p. 988. 1036. he proves averse now to what he had formerly advanced and delays the decision of the Divorce so long till at last the Pope moved thereto by the Emperor Nephew to Queen Katherine did upon her appeal revoke the cause to Rome and inhibited the Legats Proceedings 'T is said also that some others of the chief of the English Clergy See Fox p. 96. and 962. Edit 1610. whether it were conscientiously or out of the same dis-affection of their's to Anne Bullen I cannot tell much disliked the same Divorce § 18 The King for this much displeased with both Cardinal and Clergy first accuseth the Cardinal to have incurred a Premunire for having exercised his Legantine Office in his Dominions without the Kings Licence contrary to a Statute made in the days of King Richard the Second Yet had the King formerly been pleased to appear before him in Court as the Popes Legate and his delegated Judge together with Campegius in the Cause of the Kings Divorce Upon this he is condemned See Godw. Annal. An. Reg. Henr. 21. and all his Estate seized on by the King Tho the Cardinal pleaded That it was well known to his Majesty that he would not presume to execute his power Legantine before the King had been pleased to ratify it with his Royal Assent given under his Seal which notwithstanding he could not produce that and all his Goods being taken from him See Godwin's Annals p. 107. who also p. 119. saith See Godw. Annal. p. 107 and p. 119. that it was certain that Wolsey was Licensed to exercise his Authority Legantine § 19 After this fall of Wolsey Next a Bill was given up in the Parliament held 1530. and the Summe demanded from the Clergy as conspiring with the Cardinal of an 100000 l. Charges that the King had been put to to obtain so many Instruments from Forreign Universities which had decided this matter From which Universities the King is said to have procured their Suffrages for his Divorce not without seeing several of them with great Summs of Money Concerning which see the Testimonies of several Authors produced by Sanders p. 49. c. Some of those he quotes saying that they had Money offered to themselves some that they were Eye-witnesses of it received by others Tho with your leave to make here a little digression touching this Controversy these Universities at least some of them considered only the point of the unlawfulness of one marrying his Brothers Wife when such former Marriage was consummate by carnal knowing of her See the Determinations of Paris and others in Hollinsh p. 924. putting in the Clause so that the Marriage be consummate Without considering that circumstance whether Katherine was carnally known by her first Husband which was denied by the Queen and her Advocates Prince Arthur being thought somewhat infirm and being but Fifteen years old when he Married her and dying shortly after You may see if you have the curiosity what is said for the consummation of that Marriage in Fox Mon. p. 958. Edit 1610. against it in Sanders de Schism Ang l. 1. l. p. 40. Yet tho the former Marriage had been consummate many Learned Men of that Age of several Nations amongst whom were Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Tonstall Bishop of Duresme whom you may find diligently reckoned up to the number of almost Twenty by Sanders de Schism Angli 1. l. p. 42. 53 54. writ Books in Justification that the Marriage of Henry with Katherine was a matter dispensable For tho this was agreed on all sides That Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impediment is jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt Yet some of these Authors held first that all the Impediments named in the Mosaical Law were not dirimentia conjugium jure divino naturali which only now oblige Christians and then secondly that in matter of Affinity only primus gradus rectae lineae as between Father and his Sons Wife and not primus gradus lineae collateralis or transversae as between the Brother and his Brothers Wife was such an Impediment as did dirimere conjugium jure divino naturali and indispensably Others gathered the Law in Levit. 18.16 dispensable in some cases from the express dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5 Now the preservation of Peace between the two Kingdomes of England and Spain is a motive for such dispensation much more considerable than that mentioned in Deut. the preservation of the name and honor of the deceased See Card. Cajetan de Conjug Reg. Angl. 6. c. And for the general judgment of the Learned in this matter and particularly of the Universities after you have read the Story in Sanders p. 49 50 51. concerning them and especially concerning Oxford as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert Hist Hen. 8. p. 324 325. See what the Act of Parliament 1. Mar. 1. c. saith of them viz. That this Marriage betwixt Henry and Katherine was solemnized by the deliberate and mature consideration and consent of the best and most notable men in Learning in those days of Christendome That the perverse affections of some a very few persons for their own singular glory and vain reputation pretended the same Marriage to be against the word of God and to this intent caused the Seals as well of certain Universities in Italy and France to be gotten as it were for a testimony by the corruption with Money of a few light persons Scholars of the said Universities as also the Seals of the Universities of this Realm to be obtained by sinister working secret threatnings c. And that Arch-Bishop Cranmer in giving Sentence that the said Matrimony was unlawful took his Foundation partly upon his own unadvised judgment of the Scripture joyning therewith the pretended testimonies of the said Universities and partly upon bare and most untrue conjectures i. e concerning the consummation of the former Marriage of Katherine with Arthur And see what Lord Hâ—rbert delivers of the hesitancy of the German Protestant Divines being several times and that long after the Divorce made requested thereto by King Henry to declare the Divorce lawful p. 448. and 379. where he saith That for the Approbation of the Divorce proposed to the German Divines Luther Justus Jonas Philip Melancthon and others they delayed to approve it and the King was judiciously advised by his Agents from thence not to require any thing of them which would be too hard to grant I have made this Digression to shew you the diversity of opinions which was in this difficult matter that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgment and how the several interests of several times justified and condemned the same thing Now to return to our matter in hand § 19 The foresaid Summe of 100000 l. spent
upon the Universities abroad was demanded by the Parliament from the Clergy at home because it was said that the Cardinal and some other chief amongst them were thro their falshood and dissimulation the cause of this Forreign Expence Which Summe they resolutely refusing to contribute the whole Clergy are sued by the King and condemned by the Kings Bench in a Premunire also for receiving and acknowledging the Cardinals Power Legantine exercised by him ignorantly or presumptuously without the Kings consent and allowance first obtained The Clergy thus become liable at the Kings pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and confiscation of their Estates assemble themselves in the House of Convocation offer to pay for their Ransome the demanded 100000 l. § 20 But the King having now no hopes of obtaining a Licence for his Divorce from the Pope who at this time stood much in awe of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine that the Popes Decrees might be of no force against him negociates also by his Agents with the Clergy whilst in these fears to give him the Title of Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters within his Dominions making account that this obtained he had the assent of his own Clergy at his beck for the nulling of his former Marriage Therefore in the drawing up of the Clergy's Petition to the King for release of the Premunire it was signified from the Court cujus consilii Cranmerus Cromwellus clam authores fuisse existimabantur saith the Author Antiq. Brittanic p. 325. that a Title should be prefixed wherein they should stile the King ecclesiae cleri Anglicani Protector supremum Caput or else the Petition would not be accepted To which with some difficulty they agreed so as qualifying it with this Clause Quantum per legem Christi licet But the King again excepting at this limitation as unworthy the Clergy who either did or ought to know and definitively instruct others what Christs Law did or did not allow at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted See Antiquit. Brittannic p. 326. Sed Regi saith that Author displicuit ancipitem dubiamque mitigationem moderationem verborum a cleri sui Synodo quae de Christi lege aut certa fuit aut certa esse debuit tam frigide proferri Itaque Cromwellum ad Synodum iterum mandans eam aut tolli voluit aut clerum incursas Sanctionum paenas pati Omnium igitur ex sententiis Rex sine ambiguitate ullâ ecclesiae Angliae supremum caput declaratus est But yet this was not done till after the Clergy who much alledged that the King or some of his Successors might upon this Title ruine the Church of England in their ordering Spiritual matters without or against the Clergy thereof had obtained a voluntary promise from him to this effect That he would never by vertue of that Grant assume to himself any more power over the Clergy than all others the Kings of England had assumed nor that he would do any thing without them in altering ordering or judging in any Spiritual matters See Bishop Fisher's Life published by Dr. Bayly And this was the first Act of the Clergy which being so understood as excluding all authority of the Western Patriarch over the Church of England and transferring such authority for the future to the King is contrary to the Fourth Thesis because some such authority was conferred on this Patriarch by Superior Councils And which Act was so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledged of Schism 7. c. it is easy to believe See Church Gov. 1. Part §. 4. and §. 20. that nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it § 22 After the conceding of this Title of Supremacy to the King and exclusion of the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions and the voiding of all appeals made hence unto him and after the Kings Marriage to Anne Bullen also but before the publication thereof Cranmer being now chosen Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon the death of Warham a Favourer of the Queen Katherine's Cause Summons her to appear before him and some other Bishops and Commissioners and upon her neglect solemnly dissolveth the Kings former Marriage with her and divorceth him from her § 23 But the Kings ends thus obtained yet things rested not here And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it But whereas formerly till the Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth the Synods of the Clergy saith Dr. Heylin § 1. p 7. after called by the Kings Writ acted absolutely in their Convocations of their own authority the Kings or Parliaments assent or ratification neither concurring nor required and whereas by this sole authority which they had in themselves they made Canons declared Heresies convicted and censured persons suspected of Heresy c Now they having declared the King supream Head of the Church instead of the Pope the Western Patriarch it seemed reasonable therefore that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head And conducing much to this end as I learn from the forenamed Dr was a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons after the Ice was broken A. 1532. See Fullâ—rs Appeal of Injur'd Innocence Pa. 2. p. 65. In which saith he they desiring that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament and that their Acts and Constitutions should not bind their Subjects as before in their Goods and Possessions until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power they shewed themselves aggrieved that the Clergy of this Realm should act authoritatively and supreamly in the Convocation and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent An Answer unto which Remonstrance saith he was drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester and being allowed of by both Houses of Convocation was by them presented to the King But the King not satisfied with this Answer resolved to bring them to his bent and therefore on the Tenth of May sent a Paper to them by Dr. Foxe after Bishop of Hereford in which it was peremptorily required that no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted promulged or put in execution unless the Kings Highness do approve the same and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution c. Whereupon on the Fifteenth of the same Month they made their absolute submission So He. And thus the next step therefore of this Reformation was that the King so requiring it they bound themselves by a Synodical Act for the time to come not to assemble themselves at all without the Kings Writ and when assembled not to enact promulge or execute any Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
Saying p. 92. If thus the Bishop will have Secular Princes to have nothing to do in the making or hindring any Decrees or Laws of the Church-men in matters meerly Spiritual but only to have such a sole dominion over the Secular Sword as that none can use it but he or by his leave in the execution of such Laws all is well but then the former-quoted Statutes of Henry the Eighth shew much more Power challenged than the Bishop alloweth This in Answer to the Bishop Secondly If it be further said here touching that particular Statute of much concernment 26. Hen. 8.1 c. quoted before § 26 and § 25. Namely §. 35. n. 4. 1 That the King shall have full power from time to time to visit repress reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spritual Authority c lawfully may be reformed c. See §. 25. If it be said here that the King hath only this power therein ascribed to him to redress and reform the Errors and Heresies which are declared such by the Church by former Councils or by the Synods of his Clergy but that he hath no power given him to judge or declare what is Error or Heresy 1. First thus then he hath not all the power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction may be exercised as it follows in that Act because there is a Spiritual Authority also that may declare new Errors and Heresies or that may reform such Errors as have not been by Synods formerly declared such and it seems this He hath not Secondly Thus the Clause ending the Act any Custome Forreign Laws Prescription c notwithstanding is utterly useless because no Forreign Laws or Prescriptions deny this Authority to Kings to reform Errors c in their Dominions so that they still confine themselves to the precedent Judgments of the Church Thirdly In the Act fore-quoted 25. Hen. 8.19 c. 'T is granted to his Highness and Thirty Two Commissioners elected by him to annul and make invalid what former Synodal Canons they think not to stand with the Laws of God therefore they have power to judge which Canons are such and to reform them i. e to teach and declare the contrary truths to them when thought by them Errors against the judgment of former Synods and without the judgment of a new Synod and what is this but to judge and pronounce de novo what is Error and Heresy Enormity Abuse c Fourthly Lastly how comes the King or his Commissioners to be made the ultimate judge See before § 31.25 Hen. 8.19 c. in all Appeals touching Divine matters if he or they cannot judge in these what is Error Since some Causes and Controversies may haply come before him not determined by former Councils And for the Errors he reforms if he is still to follow the judgment of his Clergy what are such Errors how are there in these things Appeals admitted to him from the judgments of his Clergy § 36 This said to remove the mis-interpretation of that Act I will add to these Acts of Parliament which I have been reciting to you from § 26. those words in the Kings last Speech which he made in Parliament not long before his death reprehending his Subjects for their great dissension in Opinion and Doctrine If you know surely saith he that a Bishop or Preacher erreth or teacheth perverse Doctrine Lord. Herb. Hist p. 536. come and declare it to some of our Council or to us to whom is committed by God the high authority to reform and order such causes and behaviours and be not Judges your selves of your fantastical Opinions and vain Expositions Here making his Council or himself Judge of the Bishops Doctrines And those words in King Henry the Eighth's Proclamation 1543. made for the eating of White-Meats Milk Butter Eggs heese in Lent where he saith That the meer positive Laws of the Church may be upon considerations and grounds altered and dispensed with by the publick authority of Kings and Princes In Fox pag. 1104. whensoever they shall perceive the same to tend to the hurt and damage of their people Vnless perhaps he restrain damage here to Civil Affairs Contrary to the Eighth Thesis And those words in Cromwell's Speech when he presided as the Kings Vicar-General over the Clergy assembled to state something in Controversies of Faith then agitated betwixt the Roman Church and Lutherans who told them That His Majesty would not suffer the Scripture to be wrested and defaced by any Glosses Fox p. 1078. any Papistical Laws or by any Authority of Doctors or Councils By which if this be meant that we are not obliged to embrace the Doctrine of Scriptures according to those Determinations and Expositions which lawful Councils have made of them it is contrary to the Fourth and Seventh Thesis and overthrows the Government of the Church See the same thing said on the Kings behalf by the Bishop of Hereford against other Bishops urging the Doctors of the Church Fox p. 1079. I will conclude with what Bishop Carleton in Jurisdict Regal and Episcopal Epist dedicat § 37 And Calvin upon those Words in Amos 7.13 Prophecy not any more at Bethel for it is the Kings Court say of these times Bishop Carleton relateth out of Calvin That Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester being at Ratisbon in Germany upon the Kings Affairs and there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that Title Supreme Head of the Church given to Henry the Eighth taught that the King had such a power that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine and abolish old As Namely ' That the King might forbid the Marriage of Priests and might take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in such things might appoint what he list And there likewise Bishop Carleton confesseth That when Henry the Eighth took this Title of Supreme Head c tho the sounder and more judicious part of the Church then understood the words of that Title so as that no offence might justly rise by it I suppose he means in that sense as himself takes it which is For the King to have a Jurisdiction Coactive in External Courts binding and compelling men by force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments to what the â—hurch in Spiritual matters defines For this Bishop saith that the Church is the only Judge of such matters See before p. 4. and in his whole Book written purposely on this Subject I do not find that he gives the King any Coactive Authority in Spiritual matters against any definition of the Church Yet saith he they that were suddenly brought from their old Opinions of Popery not to the love of the Truth but to the observance of the Kings Religion received a gross and impure sense of these words But this gross sense is such as Bishop Gardiner
expressed and as I think some of these Instances in the Parliaments Acts c made above do confirm tho some Writers in our latter times seem to be somewhat unwilling to acknowledge it And it is plain that Calvin in Amos 7. understood those times in which he writ to have given Supremacy to Kings and particularly to Henry the Eighth in this gross sense Whilst he complains thus Et hodiè quam multi sunt in Papatu qui Regibus accumulant quicquid possunt juris potestatis ita ut ne qua fiat disceptatio de religione sed potestas haec sit penes Regem unum ut Statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit sine controversiâ hoe firmum maneat Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt inconsiderati homines Dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me semper graviter vulneravit erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent ipsum summum caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Hoc certè fuit nimium Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat quia peccarunt inconsiderato zelo Sed impostor ille Stephen Gardiner qui postea fuit Cancellarius hujus Proserpinae quae hodiè illic superat omnes diabolos he means Queen Mary Ille cum esset Ratisponae non pugnabat rationibus loquor de hoc postremo Cancellario qui Episcopus fuit Vintoniensis sed quemadmodum jam caepi dicere non multum curabat Scripturae testimonia sed dicebat fnisse in arbitrio Regum Statuta abrogare ritus novos instituere Si de jejunio agitur illud regem posse populo indicere jubere ut hoc vel illo die vescatur populus carnibus licere etiam prohibene Sacerdotes a conjugio licere etiam regi interdicere populo usum calicis in caenâ licere regi statuere hoc vel illud in regno suo Quare Potestas enim summa est penes Regem He goes on complaining Certum quidem est Reges si fungantur suo officio esse Patronos Religionis nutricios Ecclesiae Hoc ergo summoperè requiritur a Regibus ut gladio quo praediti sunt utantur ad cultum Dei asserendum but of whom shall they learn the right cultus Dei Of the Body of Church-men Then what will become of Galvinisme Sed interea sunt homines inconsiderati such as Arch-Bishop Granmer and others qui faciunt illos nimis Spirituales Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germaniâ In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur amongst the Genevois and the Swisses nunc sentimus quales fructus nascantur ex illâ radice quod sic Principes quicunque potiuntur imperio putant se ita Spirituales esse ut nullum sit amplius Ecclesiasticium regimen Non putant se posse regnare nisi aboleant omnem Ecclesiae authoritatem sint summi Judices tam in doctrinâ quam in toto Spirituali regimine Tenendum est igitur temperamentum quia hic morbus semper in Principibus regnavit ut vellent inflectere religionem pro suo arbitrio libidine interea etiam pro suis commodis Hodiè dolendae sunt nobis nostrae vices deplorandae Thus he goes on complaining of the reforming Princes in those times making themselves the summi Judices both in Ecclesiastical Doctrines and Government Himself mean-while thus being destitute of any Judge at all in these matters the judgment of Seculars being by his sentence invalid of the Church opposing him To this of Calvin may be added what Dr. Fern saith in his Consid concerning Reform 2. c. 6. § That the Bishops and Clergy under Henry the Eighth may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denied to the Pope but in that part which they attributed to the King I add which part wrongly attributed to the King by consequence they faultily denied if not to the Pope yet to some other whose right it was And then I ask what person or persons this should be CHAP. IV. The Supremacy claimed by King Edward the Sixth § 38 NExt to come to the Times of Edward the Sixth Here we find the Power and Priviledges of the Kings Supremacy nothing diminished 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth but all those by Act of Parliament confirmed to Edward the Sixth which were formerly conceded to Henry the Eighth § 39 1. First Whereas there had been in former Ages several Parliament Statutes made in Confirmation of the Determinations of the Church and concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Bishops their Ordinaries As that Act 2. Hen. 4.15 That none shall preach hold teach or instruct contrary to the Catholick Faith or Determination of Holy Church and if any person shall offend in this kind that the Diocesan shall judicially proceed against him and that Act 2. Hen. 5.7 That for so much as the Cognizance of Heresy belongeth to the Judges of Holy Church and not to the Secular Judges such persons indited shall be delivered to the Ordinary of the Places to be acquitted or convicted by the Laws of Holy Church we find these Statutes repealed by King and Parliament 1. Edw. 6.12 c. And when-as they were again revived by Queen Mary 1 and 2. Mariae 6. c. with this Preface for the eschewing and avoiding of Heresies which of late have much increased within this Realm for that the Ordinaries have wanted authority to proceed against those that were infected therewith we find them again repealed as soon as Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown 1. Eliz. 1. c. the Tryal of Heresies and Hereticks by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy Church being admitted or excluded here according as the Prince was Catholick or Reformed § 40 Further we find it affirmed in the Act 1. Edw. 6.2 c. That all authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the Kings Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England Consequently in 1. Edw. 6.2 c. we find ordered That no Election be made of any Bishop by the Dean and Chapter but that the King by his Letters-Patents shall confer the same to any person whom he shall think meet and a Collation so made stand to the same effect as tho a Conge-d'-eslire had been given c. That all Processes Ecclesiastical shall be made in the name and with the stile of the King as in Writs at Common-Law and the Teste thereof shall be in the name of the Bishop These likewise to be sealed with no other Seal but the Kings or such as should be authorized by him Concerning which Act thus Dr. Heylin candidly Hist of Reform p. 51. By the last Branch thereof it is plain that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the Kings
agree that the Bishop shall practice exercise or have any manner of Authority Jurisdiction or Power within this Realm but shall resist the same at all times to the uttermost of my power And I from henceforth will accept repute and take the Kings Majesty to be the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England And to my Wit and uttermost of my Power I will observe and defend the whole Effects and Contents of all and singular Acts and Statutes made and to be made within this Realm in derogation extirpation and extinguishing of the Bishop of Rome and his Authority and all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made in Confirmation and Corroboration of the Kings Power of the Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England c. Here is the Clergy tied to swear as to all Acts of the Civil Power already past so indefinitely and beforehand to all also that are to come which may derogate any thing from the Popes power or add to the Kings in Spiritual matters as if no bounds or limits at all were due thereto § 43 Again in the Sixth Year of King Edward the whole Synod of the Clergy if we may credit the relation of Mr. Philpot See Fox p. 1282. in the Convocation 1. Mariae did grant Authority to certain persons to be appointed not by them but by the Kings Majesty to make Ecclesiastical Laws where it seems to me somewhat strange that the Synod should now de novo give to the King what was before assumed as his Right And accordingly a Catechisme bearing the name of the Synod was set forth by those persons nominated by the King without the Synods revising or knowing what was in it tho a Catechisme said Dr. Weston the Prolocutor 1. Mariae full of Heresies This Book being then produced in Convocation and denied by the Synod to be any Act of theirs Philpot urged it was because the Synodal Authority saith he was committed to certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary Which Argumentation of Philpots seems to be approved by Dr. Fern in Consid upon the Reform 2. chap. 9. sect Here then the Synod grants Authority in Spiritual matters that they know not who shall in their name establish that which they please without the Synods knowing either what Laws shall be made or who shall make them which is against the First and Second Thesis and is far from adding any just authority to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of those times or to any Acts which are thus only called Synodal because the Synod hath in general given away their Power to those who make them afterward as themselves think fit Whereas to make an Act lawfully Synodical the Consent of the Clergy must be had not to nominate in a Trust which Christ hath only committed to themselves in general another Law-giver viz. the King or his Commissioners for thus King Edward will choose Cranmer and Ridley and Queen Mary will choose Gardiner and Bonner to prescribe Laws for the Church but to know approve and ratify in particular every such Law before it can be valid § 44 Besides these Acts of Parliament and Synod the manner of Supremacy then ascribed to the Prince yet further appears in the Imprisonment of Bishop Bonner in the First year of King Edward for making such an hypothetical Submission as this to the Kings Injunctions and Homilies then by certain Commissioners sent unto him I do receive these Injunctions and Homilies See Fox p. 1192. with this Protestation that I will observe them if they be not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and the Statute and Ordinance of the Church the fault imputed here to him I suppose being that he refused to obey any Injunctions of the King when repugnant to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church for which Fox calls this Protestation Popish But the manner of this Supremacy appears yet more specially in the several Articles proposed to be subscribed by Bishop Gardiner § 45. n 1. upon his refusing to execute or submit to divers particular Injunctions of King Edward in Spiritual matters imposed upon the Clergy the Subscription required of him was To the Book of Homilies affirmed to contain only godly and wholsome Doctrine and such as ought by all to be embraced To new Forms of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and to the denyal of Real Presence or of Transubstantiation if any thing in that Form may may be said to oppose either of these To the new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests To the disannulling and abolition of the former Church Liturgy and Canon of the Mass and of the Litanies to Saints and Rituals of the Church To the abolition of Sacred Images and Sacred Relicks To the permission of Marriage to the Clergy To the acknowledging that the Statute of the Six Articles was by Authority of Parliament justly repealed and dis-annulled To the acknowledging that the appointment of Holy-days and Fasting-days as Lent and Ember-days and the dispensing therewith is in the Kings Majesty's Authority and Power as Supreme Head of the Church of England To the acknowledging that Monastick Vows were Superstitious and the Religious upon the dissolution of their Monasteries lawfully freed from them as likewise that the suppressing and dissolution of Monasteries and Convents by the King was done justly and out of good reason and ground For all which see the Copy of the Second and of the Last Articles sent to Bishop Gardiner in Fox p. 1234 and 1235. In which Articles the Kings Supremacy is thus expressed in the Second of the First Articles sent to him That his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church of England hath full Power and Authority to make and set forth Laws Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion and Orders in the said Church for repressing of all Errors and Heresies and other enormities and abuses so that the same alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scripture and Law of God as is said in the Sixth of the Second Articles sent to this Bishop Now how far this repressing and reforming of Errors c. claimed by the King did extend we may see in those points but now named In the Fifth That all Subjects who disobey any his said Majesties Laws Injunctions Ordinances in such matters already set forth and published or hereafter to be set forth and published ought worthily to be punished according to his Ecclesiastical Law used within this his Realm Again in the 7.11 12.14.16 of the Third Articles sent to the same Bishop That the former Liturgies of the Church Mass-Books c that the Canons forbidding Priests Marriage c are justly taken away and abolish'd and the new Forms of Common-Prayer and of Consecration of Bishops and Priests are justly established by Authority of Parliament and by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm and therefore ought to be received
and approved of all the faithful Ministers of Gods word Where note That tho in some of these Articles §. 45. n. 2. the Authority of Parliament is mentioned yet in none of these is any thing said of the consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Regal or Parliamentary Injunctions in Ecclesiastical matters valid From which may be collected That when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mentioned as sometimes it is See the Letter of the King and Council to Bishop Bonner Fox p. 1186 and the Kings Message to the Rebels of Cornwal Fox p. 1189 it is not to add any Authority to those Injunctions thereby which Injunctions were imposed on the Clergy before any Synodal consent of the Clergy was either given or asked but to propose the judgment and example of the Clergy consenting as a motive to render others that stand out conformable as whose judgment they ought to reverence and whose example they ought to follow not as whose Decree and Constitution they ought to obey And if you wonder why the King and Parliament of those days never pleaded this last as you shall never find it pleaded by them the reason I conjecture was besides that they were conscious of some changes made by them of these Ecclesiastical Judges displacing those who would not conform to their Inclinations which rendred them not so authentical because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force by vertue of their Office or any Commission from Christ but that so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were Superior to the English Clergy and which were contrary to the Laws of this National Synod and so would void and make them of none effect And if the King by vertue of his Supremacy urged his and his Subjects freedome from the former Laws and Constitutions of the Church Vniversal so must he from the present Laws of his own Church National He and his Subjects being tied in no more Duty to the one than to the other nor in so much § 46 If you would know how Bishop Gardiner behaved himself in this Tryal it was with great perplexity and distraction as neither knowing now how safely to recal and recant that Supremacy of the King in Spirituals which he had formerly acknowledged and sworn to nor how in that Duty which he owed to the Church to obey those particular Injunctions which the King imposed upon him by vertue of this Supremacy acknowledged by him and so he incurred for this latter deprivation and imprisonment And perhaps it may be thought a just judgment from God that he should be thus ensnared and undone by that sense of Supremacy of which he had been in Henry the Eighth's days both at home and abroad See §. 37. as you have heard from Calvin so zealous an Abettor § 47 I will conclude these Evidences under Edward the Sixth with what is said in Antiquit. Brittannic p. 339. which quotes for it the Archives touching the resentment of their lost Synodal Authority which some of the Clergy shewed in a Synod called by Arch-Bishop Cranmer in the First Year of King Edward's Reign for the furthering of a Reformation tho he could effect nothing therein In which Synod the Clergy now too late perceiving that not only the Pope but themselves had lost their former Ecclesiastical Power and that the King and Parliament ordered Spiritual Affairs as they pleased without their consents requested that at least the rest of their Convocation might be joyned with the House of Commons as the Bishops were with the Lords that so they might have a Vote also in passing Church matters but this request would not be granted them The Authors words are these Animadverterunt Praelati omnem vim authoritatemque Synodi non modò diminutam sed penitus fractam eversamque esse postquam Clerus in verbo Sacerdotis Henrico Regi promisisset sine authoritate Regiâ in Synodo se nihil decreturos or indeed that the King might decree what he pleased without the Authority of the Synod for such a Supremacy was either granted to or assumed by the King Quâ Ecclesiasticarum rerum potestate abdicatâ Populus in Parliamento caepit de rebus divinis inconsulto Clero sancire tum absentis cleri privilegia immunitates sensim detrahere juraque duriora quibus Clerus invitus teneretur constituere Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est Proinde petierunt ut in Concilio inferiori Praelati Clerique procuratores cum populo permixti de Republicâ Ecclesiâ unà consulant c. Thus that Author And you may see also the Petition it self lately Printed out of a Manuscript of Arch-Bishop Cranmers by Mr. Stillingfleet Irenicum 2. Part 8. c. Where seeking too late to recover their former Steerage in Ecclesiastical Affairs now transacted in the Court of Parliament the Lower House of Convocation prefers these Requests That Whereas in a Stat. 25. Hen. 8. the Clergy had promised in Verbo Sacerdotii never from thenceforth to Enact c any new Canons Constitutions c unless the Kings Assent and Licence may to them be had c therefore they desire that the Kings Majesties Licence may be for them obtained authorizing them to attempt and commune of such matters and therein freely to give their consent which otherwise they may not do upon pain and peril premised That either the Clergy of the Lower House of the Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the Lower House of Parliament or else that all such Statutes as shall be made concerning matters of Religion may not pass without the sight and assent of the said Clergy or as it runs in the Second Petition the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto and their Answers and Reasons not heard That since the former were annulled Ecclesiastical Laws may be established in the Realm by Thirty Two persons or so many as shall please the King to appoint c. That all Judges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril That whereas they were informed that certain Prelates and other Learned Men were appointed to alter the Service in the Church and did make certain Books c the said Books may be seen and perused by them for a better expedition of Divine Service c. That such matters as concern Religion which be disputable may be reasoned and disputed amongst them in this House whereby the Verity of such matters shall the better appear c. Thus laboured then the poor Clergy to obtain a joint share at least with the Parliament and civil State in transacting the Affairs of the Church And Dr. Heylin in Reform Justified § 4. p. 21. grants thus much That the Censures of the Church were grown weak if not invalid and consequently by degrees became neglected ever after that King Henry the Eighth took the Headship on him and exercised the same by
a Lay Vicar-General and p. 20 That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use than afterward in times well ballanced and established meaning those following times wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince And as for these days of King Edward what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people but the new Divines of Edward acknowledged and enstated in the King and Parliament may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper when in Prison sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary Episcopis Decanis wherein he cites them before the High Court of Parliament â—ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies i. e for so far as any man can be Judge In this Letter after having urged Deut. 17.8 because of the mention made there of a Judge besides the Priest Voâ— omnes saith he obtestor ut causam hanc vel aliam quamcunqne ob religionem ortam inter nos vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro excelso senatu sese religiosè animo submisso judicio authoritati Verbi Dei subjiciat Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat ut palam e. c lites inter nos componantur idque coram competenti judice Quid hoc est igitur Quo jure contenditis Vultis nostri causae nostrae testes accusatores judices esse Nos tantùm legem evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus ut coram competenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium Non vos fugit quomodo publicè palam in facie ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni in summâ curià Parliamenti veritas verbi Dei per fidos doctos pios ministros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit Quae quocunque titulo tempore universalitate splenduit ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari per proceres heroas ac doctos hujus regni erat mandatum statim evanuit c. Here that Bishop professeth when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion not the Synod but the Parliament the competent Judge therein and urgeth if I rightly understand him the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgment which as it was then affected would have cast him It seemeth Not by that he faith Tantum legem Dei in causâ religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him a Prisoner for this Controversy By the Clergy's No. By the Parliament's No for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter By the Scripture then its self But this is urged by both sides to speak for them and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament than it did before So that in nominating no other final Judge the Bishops Request here in summe is that his Cause may never be tryed by any Judge CHAP. V. King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary § 48 AFter King Edward's Death in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign a Princess otherwise principled The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Popes Supremacy re-acknowledged all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church in innovating the Forms of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments of Ordination of Church Rites and Discipline and Jurisdiction in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and composing new ones All was now by an equal Authority of Prince Clergy and State reversed repealed ejected and Religion only rendred much poorer as for Temporals put into the same course which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth before a new Wife or a new Title was by him thought on So that any new Reformation to come afterward must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure being now by the like Authority defaced and thrown down § 49 This Restitution of things made in Queen Mary's days will chiefly appear to you in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap where the ancient Form of Divine Service c used in Henry the Eighths days is restored as being the Service saith the Act which we and our Fore-fathers found in this Church of England left unto us by the Authority of the Catholick Church And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church and several Acts of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws c or introduced new Forms of Divine Service of Election and Ordination of Bishops and Priests are repealed And in 1 and 2. Mar. 6. chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Hereticks first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again and the Statutes to this purpose which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy are revived § 50 And in 1 and 2. Mar. 8. c where the Pope's Supremacy is re-acknowledged when also as Fox observes p. 1296. the Queen's Stile concerning Supremacy was changed and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted as also Bonner Bishop of London being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Arch-Bishop did omit in his Writs to the Clergy Authoritate Illustrissimae c legitime suffulttus In which Statute also the whole Nation by their Representative in Parliament ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism repealing the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's time against the Popes Supremacy and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy set down before § 22. and § 23 whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased to reform Errors Heresies c i e. to do the Offices of the Clergy In which Statute also the Clergy in a distinct Supplication beginning Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati c calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights Jurisdictions Liberties taken from her by the injustice of former times The words are Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus
those scruples that were made by some against the Oath And further her Majesty forbiddeth her Subjects to give credit to such persons See Canâ—od Hâ—st Elâ—z p. 20. who notify to her Subjects how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm may challenge authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church Wherein her Subjects be much abused For her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that was challenged and lately used by King Henry and King Edward which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Grown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal so as no other Sovereign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them but this Sovereignty and Rule I suppose must be understood to extend to all the Particulars which Queen Elizabeth 's Statute but now recited alloweth to belong to it and wherein Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it And if any Person who hath conceived any other sense of the Form of the said Oath i. e. that in it the Queen challenged Authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation sense or meaning i. e. that she had such Sovereignty as was challenged and lately used by her Father and Brother Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such Person in that behalf as her Obedient Subject Thus the Admonition and the same is said in the Statute 5. Eliz. 1. c referring to the Admonition That none other Authority was by that Oath acknowledged in her Majesty than that which was challenged and used by those Two Kings See likewise 1 Eliz. 1. c the Repeal of the former way of the Tryal of Hereticks that was revived according to the former Statutes by Queen Mary leaving the Supremacy in Spirituals to Church-men § 72 Neither do the several things Where Concerning certain qâ—alifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed that are noted by Dr. Fern in his Examen of Champny 9. c. § 16.20 and others as qualifications and bounds of the Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth seem to come home to their purpose so far as to render it justifiable There are urged by them 1. The Stile she used in calling her self not Supream Head but only Supream Governor 2. The Words in the Admonition viz. Her Majesty doth not challenge any other Authority than under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons c as the words are recited but now 3. The words of the 37. Article of the Church of England relating to these of the Admonition We give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen 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 and evil Doers 4. The Qualification of the Authority of the Queen's Commissioners to judge or determine Heresies Provided always that such persons authorized c. See the Words quoted before § 70. § 73 But to these it is rationally replyed And the Replies to them Reply to the First To the First That if the same and as much power be still signified by the Queen's Title now as was before by the other which hath been shewed but now in the Statute in the Admonition c what matters the varying of words that alters nothing in the sense Neither is the Title of Head of the Church so it be understood subordinate to Christ incompetent to some person or other here on earth § 74 To the Second To the 2d That the words quoted out of the Admonition may indeed be taken in such a general sense that all sides will willingly subscribe to For the Queen hath a Sovereignty and Rule over all manner persons born within her Realms so i. e. in such manner as no other Forreign Sovereign Power hath namely in this manner to punish her Subjects whatsoever with the Temporal Sword either for the Breach of the Church's Canons and Decrees or for the Breach of her own Laws Again That the words may be taken in such a sense as that tho they signified no more of which presently yet none can justly subscribe them supposing those things true concerning the Western Patriarch and concerning Superior Councils and concerning Church Constitutions which are laid down in the First and Second Part of Church Government and in the Fourth and Eighth Thesis namely if they be taken in this sense That no Forreign Power hath any Ecclesiastical Superiority or Jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever over the Church of England without reflecting on this Controversy at all namely Whether the Sovereign Power here at home for the judging and reforming of what is Error Heresy Superstition c and for the abrogating or establishing the former Liturgies of the Church Canons of Superior or also National Synods doth lye in the Prince or in some others viz the Clergy of this Nation or also in the Parliament or in all these jointly so that the Clergy can do none of these things without the Prince or Parliament nor Prince without the major part of Clergy But these Two Senses of these words of which the later is not justifiable are both of them too much restrained in respect of the intent of this Admonition as may be gathered from the Precedents in the same Admonition where the Queen's Sovereignty is extended to all the Particulars wherein Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it And from the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. but now recited which surely this Admonition was not written to contradict or repeal And from the ordinary practice of these Princes which shall be more shewed anon without which Practice such Reformation could not have been effected and therefore this Practice must be justified And from the Testimony of the Protestant Writers who vindicate and maintain a Supremacy of a much larger extent and answerable to the Expressions in the Acts of Parliament even to the Prince's not only ruling over all Persons Ecclesiastical but judging and determining in matters Ecclesiastical what therein is Dissonant from or Consonant to Gods Word and then establishing it in their Dominions tho contrary to former Church Canons tho without or against the Vote of the major part of their own Clergy as shall be shewed below § 203 c which thing also is maintained to have been done by the Holy Kings of Israel § 75 To the Third the same may be repeated which is said to the
Second To the Third and this part of the Article tho annexed for an Explanation is couched in such general Terms as that it will be subscribed to by all sides Fr. a S. Clara Expos 39 Articles alloweth it and saith also Hic Articulus a Gallis Parliamento Parisiensi salvâ communione Ecclesiae usurpatur Neither doth it contain any thing but which may well consist with the contradictory of that Proposition which follows there viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm § 76 To the Fourth 1. That the Proviso made by the Queen and her Parliament seems only to limit the Persons To the Fourth 1. whom the Queen shall nominate for her Delegates that they shall adjudge nothing Error or Heresy without the consent of Parliament and Convocation as likewise they made another Proviso that they should adjudge no Order of the Parliament in Ecclesiastical matters to be Error or Heresy See the same Statute but not to limit the Queen who holds the Supremacy of this Church and so these pretended Consequences thereof as her own right and not from Gift but Recognition only of the Parliament and Clergy and who in the Statute and I think in the Doctrine of our Divines See below § 204. c is acknowledged to have Power to reform Error Heresy Schism which presupposeth judging what is so without any such Proviso of consent of Councils or Parliament as also the pious Kings of Judah are urged to have done the like Or if the Proviso limit the Prince also That then the Practice of the Reforming Princes will not be justifiable nor their Reformation who have corrected many Doctrines without consent of Councils nay when lawful Superior Synods have decreed the contrary and without consent of Convocation and others without consent of Parliament But Secondly The limitation here whether of those Persons or of the Prince in adjudging Errors and Heresies in Divine matters if the words be narrowly considered seems to be in effect none For as you may see in the Proviso if such thing hath been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scripture i. e. seem to them to be so they need look no further for consent of Councils or Parliament or Clergy and no more need they to regard Councils tho defining the contrary if they have not defined so by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scripture of which thing they are to judge See before § 36. the Speech of the Lord Cromwel Thirdly Suppose there be a consent of the King and Clergy without or against Authority of Parliament such thing cannot be adjudged Heresy according to this Proviso if it be extended to the Prince Fourthly Supposing that the Clergy and Parliament judge something to be Error or Heresy which former Councils Superior to this National Synod have determined to be a Divine Truth this Proviso's allowing the Prince to follow the consent of his Parliament and Clergy upon pretence of the Councils not defining according to express Scripture will offend against the Fourth and Eighth Thesis § 77 Thus much to shew But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy that the same Supremacy that was acknowledged to King Henry and King Edward was also to Queen Elizabeth by her Parliament But you may observe that neither it in such a sense as it was challenged nor the Reformation that was effected by it were acknowledged or consented to by her Bishops or the Clergy I mean that Clergy which was in being at the beginning of her Reign which hath been proved already § 54. c to be a lawful Clergy And when these things touching Supremacy and Reformation were passed by the Parliament all the Bishops that sate there opposed them See Cambden A. 2. Eliz. probably because in those Two former Kings days they had by Experience learnt the Trespasses which such a Supremacy made upon the proper Rights and Jurisdictions of the Clergy and the Irreverence and Libertinisme and Distraction which the Innovation of the Liturgies and other Religious Rites brought into the Church besides the unlawfulness of a part reforming against the whole Thus at that time the Clergy behaved themselves Neither in lieu thereof can the Concessions to these or the like things by the former Clergy that was under Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth be here pleaded because these were retracted again by the Clergy in Queen Mary's time neither can the Concession of the Clergy of later times in Queen Elizabeth's Reign be urged because this Clergy was first changed and moulded to the Queen's Religion the former being unlawfully ejected as shall be shewed hereafter CHAP. VII The Actings of Henry the Eighth upon such Supremacy acknowledged in Ecclesiastical Affairs III. Head § 78 I have spoken hitherto from Sect. 26. concerning what manner of Supremacy it was that these Princes assumed How according to such Supremacy assumed these Three Prieces acted in Ecclesiâ—stâ—cal Affairâ— or also the Clergy or Parliament recognized as their Right In the Third place I promised to shew you how according to this their conceived right these Three Princes acted in matters Ecclesiastical And first to begin with Henry the Eighth First By vertue of such a Supremacy he committed the former Canons and Laws of the Church § 79 calling them the Pontificial Laws The Actings of Hen. 8th in Ecclesiastical Affairs In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastâ—câ—l Laws and compiling a new Body of them to the Arbitrement of Thirty Two Persons nominated by him half Laicks to be abrogated corrected reformed as they with his Confirmation should think meet Nec eo contentus saith the Prefacer to the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum Reprinted 1640. cordatus Rex Henry the Eighth ut nomen nudosque solum titulos a se suisque depelleret nisi jura decretaque omnia quibus adhuc obstringebatur Ecclesia Anglicana perfringeret huc quoque animum adiccit ut universam secum remp in plenam adsereret libertatem Quocirca tum ex ipsius tum ex publico senatus decreto delecti sunt viri aliquot usu doctrinâ praestantes numero 32 qui penitùs abolendo Pontificio juri quod Canonicum vocamus cum omni aliâ Decretorum Decretalium facultate novas ipsi leges quae controversiarum morum judicia regerent Regis nomine authoritate surrogarent And thus saith the King himself in his Epistle to all Arch-Bishops Barons c printed before the same Book Abundè vobis declaratum hactenusfuit quantopere in hac nostrâ Brittanniâ multis retro saeculis Episcopi Romani vis injusta religioni Christianae verae doctrinae propagandae adversata est Potestatem hanc huic cum divino munere sublatam esse manifestum est ne quid superesset quo non planè fractam illius vim esse constaret leges omnes decreta atque instituta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta
sunt prorsus abroganda censuimus Quorum loco en vobis authoritate nostrâ editas leges damus quas a vobis omnibus suscipi coli observari volumus sub nostrae indignationis paenâ mandamus Thus the King Where the meaning of the words decreta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt must be extended to Decrees not only Pontifical but Synodal wherein the Pope presided for the Canon-Law is compiled of both these and over both these did the Kings Supremacy claim Authority in his Dominions and over whatsoever else seemed to him established not by Divine but only by Humane Authority See before § 22.23.27 And also the things changed by him were not the Decrees of Popes but of Councils § 80 By vertue of such a Supremacy he put forth certain Injunctions A. D. 1536. concerning matters of Faith Intitled Articles devised by the Kings Highness to stable Christian quietness and unity amongst the People you may read them set down at large in Mr. Fuller's Church History 5. l. p. 216 for Mr. Fox his Epitome of them conceals many things It is true that these Articles as also the Six Articles published afterward 1539 and the Necessary Doctrine set forth 1543. do for the matter of them as they seem to me discede in nothing from the Doctrines of former Councils nor have nothing in them favouring the reformed Opinions for they allow Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory kneeling and praying before tho not to Images the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Auricular Confession and do not deny Seven Sacraments as some misrelate them because they speak only of Three which Seven Sacraments are all acknowledged and treated on in Necessary Doctrine c. And it cannot be denyed that the Clergy of King Henry also whom he used much more than his Successors King Edward and Queen Elizabeth in his Consultations concerning Religion were except in the introducing of the Kings Supremacy very opposite to the Reformation of other Doctrines or Ceremonies in the Church as appears by the Mala dogmata transcribed out of the Records by Mr. Fuller 5. l. p. 209. to the Number of 67. much agreeing with the Modern Tenents of Puritans Anabaptists and Quakers which Mala Dogmata being by the Lower House of Convocation at this time presented to the Upper House of Bishops to have them condemned occasioned the production of these Injunctions But yet notwithstanding all this for the manner of the Edition of these Injunctions or Articles it is to be noted that the King by vertue of his Supremacy commands them to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judged by him agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God and makes the Clergy therein only his Counsellor and Adviser not a Law-giver See besides the Title his words in the Preface to those Injunctions Which determination debatement and agreement of the Clergy saith he forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good right and true judgment and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God we have caused the same to be published requiring you to accept repute and take them accordingly i. e. as agreeable to Gods Laws and Ordinances So where in these Injunctions he commandeth the Observation of Holy-days he saith We must keep Holy-days unto God in Memory of Him and his Saints upon such days as the Church hath ordained except they be mitigated and moderated by the Assent and Commandment of us the Supream Head to the Ordinaries and then the Subjects ought to obey it such command § 81 By vertue of such a Supremacy he afterward published a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith In putting forth a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Sâ—x A ticles and of the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same for matter of Doctrine not much differing from the Injunctions mentioned before which Book he Entitled A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People adding a Preface thereto in his Royal name to all his faithful and loving Subjects That they might know saith he the better in those dangerous times what to believe in point of Doctrine and how to carry themselves in points of Practice Which Book before the publishing thereof after it saith Dr. Heylin Reform Chur. Engl. § 4. p. 23. was brought into as much Perfection as the said Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Learned Men appointed by the King to this work would give it without the concurrence of the Royal Assent was presented once again to the Kings consideration who very carefully perused and altered many things with his own hand as appears by the Book it self extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library and having so altered and corrected it in some Passages returned it to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Cranmer who bestowed some further pains upon it that being to come forth in the Kings Name and by his Authority there might be nothing in the same that might be justly reprehended For a Preparatory to which Book that so it might come forth with the greater credit the King caused an Act to pass in Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. for the abolishing of all Books and Writings comprising any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that Doctrine which since the Year 1540 is or any time during the Kings life shall be set forth by his Highness Thus Dr. Heylin Which Definitions Decrees and Ordinances so set forth by the King all his Subjects were fully to believe obey and observe 32. Hen. 8. 26. c. See before § 32. And if any Spiritual Person should preach or teach contrary to those Determinations or any other that should be so set forth by his Majesty such Offender the third time contrary to that Act of Parliament was to be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and to suffer pains of death by Burning See before § 34. By which Act therefore amongst other things the holding of the Pope's Supremacy which is contrary to the Doctrine of that Book is declared Heresy And see the like ordained by Parliament concerning the Six Articles in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. where it is Enacted That every Person that doth preach teach declare argue against any of the Six Articles being thereof convicted shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick § 82 And thus Heresy now belonging to the Kings Cognizance as the Church's Supream Head became also by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joyned with the Kings a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King 's Of their Cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but the adjudging of it And their Vote herein was joyned at least with that of the Clergy if not in Authority preferred before it as appears by these and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14 c. mentioned before § 34 and in the two Proviso's of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned
more dignified and powerful amongst the Religious are acquainted what Penalties they have incurred and have seen already inflicted on others and that the King as Supream Head of this Church might also depose their Societies alienate and dispose of their Estates as he saw sit to those who would serve God better but that they might one way sooner obtain both security and pardon for their past faults and provision for their future livelihoods if they would rather preventively resign their Foundations and Possessions into the King's hands then stay to have them by his just power taken from them especially since the King on such condition would either to the present Incumbents give other Preferments or allow considerable Pensions equalling their former Income to the unpreferred for their lives And thus many if not all of these greater Foundations having seen already the lesser seized on some persons having fair hopes of being well provided for others of Impunity others also desiring more liberty and weary of the fetters of a Cloistered life especially as restrained by the new Regal Injunctions give-up and make-over their Monasteries and all the Estate belonging thereto under their Hands and Seals to the King and his Heirs for ever And the King again returns yearly a vast summe of Money in Pensions bestowed on the more Eminent of the Monasticks for term of life A many of which Pensions you may see set down in Mr. Fuller 6. l. p. 304. who also ibid. p. 316. makes this Relation how the Monks were tempted with them It was also pressed upon the Monks Fryars and Nuns that they thro their viciousness being obnoxious to the King's anger this i. e. the taking away of their Estates might and would be done without their consent So that it was better for them rebus sic stantibus to make a Vertue of Necessity the rather because this Compliment conduced nothing to the Kings Right on whom the Parliament had already bestowed those Abbey-Lands but might add much to their own advantage as being the way whereby their Pensions might be the more easily procured largely alotted and surely paid unto them Thus He. And thus the Lord Herb. p. 442. to the same purpose Cromwel betwixt Threats Gifts Perswasions Promises and whatsoever might make men obnoxious obtained of the Abbots Priors Abbesses c that their Houses might be given up Among which those that offered their Monasteries freely got best Conditions of the King for if they stood upon their right the Oath of Supremacy and some other Statutes and Injunctions brought them in danger or their Crimes at least made them guilty of the Law which also was quickly executed and particularly on the Abbots of Glassenbury Colchester and Reading who more than any else resisted § 92 When these Lands also were dispersed and disposed-of and this great income spent the King's Necessities being no less argent upon him than formerly nay more he having lately engaged a War with France and Scotland the gleanings as it were of this Harvest which before lay unregarded are now looked after and all the Chaunteries Free-Chappels Colledges except the Universities Fraternities c Dedicated also to such pious uses as neither the King nor Parliament of that time disallowed viz. offering the Holy Eucharist distributing Alms and saying Prayers for the faithful deceased as likewise the advancing of Learning sustenance of the Poor c are thrown into the King's Lap upon pretence of abuses found in these too For which see Statute 37 Hen. 8.4 c. where the reason of giving them away to the King and frustrating the uses for which they were founded is lest the Priests or Governors that enjoyed them should sell them away and frustrate the same uses as some had done already probably for prevention of the Storm they saw coming upon these after the Monasteries as if such faults of the Incumbents were capable of no other cure nor these Lands preservable by Law to the Founders intentions § 93 Now to reflect a little on these Ads of King Henry so odious to the memory of posterity Reflections upon these Preâ—eaces in them he seem many ways void of excuse For 1. First For the King's Necessities many of them seem to be faultily contracted 1. by to say no worse needless expence and because this high-spirited and valiant Prince would needs engage himself as Lord Herb. p. 511. judiciously observes beyond what was requisite and would be an Actor for the most part where he needed only to have been a Spectator And methinks these things do not sute well together to pull down Religious Houses for meer necessity Herbert p. 513. and in such Expeditions to cross the Seas in a Ship trimmed with Sails of Cloth of Gold § 94 Secondly For the Precedent of Cardinal Wolsey 1. 2. There was nothing done in it but what was justifiable by the Ecclesiastical Canons it being lawful in some Cases and on some Conditions for the Supreme Governors amongst Church-men to alienate or rather to transfer from one pious use to another those things which are given to them or being given to God are in his right possessed by them as his Ministers But hence will it riot follow that any Lay tho the Sovereign Power who is not the Receiver or Possessor of such a Gift but rather the Doner for without the King's Consent the Church receives no such Gifts can afterward resume from God and the Church the disposal of it Here I may say as St. Peter Acts 5. 4. Before it was so bestowed by him was it not his own But once so passed away and his Mort-main allowed to it it cannot then be recalled upon any Secular Title But Secondly Suppose the King Heir to all that Supremacy which in these matters the Pope or other Ecclesiastical Persons have formerly exercised yet this Power will not extend to that which the King assumed For the Pope pretends to no such Power as to alienate the Church Revenues for to spend them himself or to dispose of them in what manner or to what Persons he pleaseth but only for some just cause i.e. in a prudential arbitration for an equal or greater Benefit thence accrewing to the Church or Christianity Which also was observed in his concession of those to Cardinal Wolsey in a time when Religious abounded more than Schollars and by that Concession the Church still enjoys them But whither Henry the Eighth's Abbey-lands went and what uses they have served we all know and this some think to the enriching of few but ruine of many Noble Families in this Nation See Dr. Heylin's Hist of Reform of Qu. Mary p. 45. and p. 67 68. § 95 Thirdly Neither were the Vices of those Religious a sufficient ground of overthrowing their Societies and Foundations 3. because the King might have punished ejected changed the Persons without taking away the Houses or Maintenance as is frequently done in all Societies and particularly in Religious Houses abroad unless
we will say that the English only are in such faults incurable Neither can it be pleaded That such Lands are given to pious uses with such a tacit condition That when abused they may be recalled so long as these abuses are some other way remediable for else what thing is there dedicated to Gods Service which some Possessors do not at some time abuse But if it be said that the abuse and fault lies chiefly in the very Institution and Laws themselves of such Foundations Yet are these Laws also capable of being rectified and reformed so as God may be holily served in such a Monastick life as the Protestants themselves say he was in the Primitive times But if the Monastick Laws here were so corrupt how come the very same Laws abroad not to produce the same fruit in Nations said to be more inclined to such Vices How come those Houses there to this day to be not only tolerated but reverenced Or how happened under the same Laws here but three or four Years before in the great Monasteries Religion Thanks be to God to be right well kept and observed Stat. 27. Hen. 8.28 c. But suppose the King had questioned the lawfulness of these Institutions yet was he no competent Judge thereof it being a Theological Controversy and decided on the other side by the lawful judge thereof in several Superior Councils as is shewed in Discourse of Celibacy But indeed that which leaves the King the more destitute of any Apology in this kind is that whereas the chief fault charged upon these cloistered People was Incontinency the King whilst he took away these Orders did justify this Vow at least of perpetual Chastity to be a Vow lawful and by every one observable as you may see in the fourth of the six Famous Articles and still did prohibit all such Persons as had taken this Vow when in Monasteries from marrying afterward when they were ejected condemning the Transgressors hereof to suffer death The Words of that fourth Article are these That the Vows of Chastity or Widow-hood by man or woman made to God advisedly i. e. as I suppose deliberately or if you will with the approbation of our Spiritual Father ought to be observed by the Law of God and that it exempteth them from other liberties of Christian People which without that Vow they might enjoy The Penalty of which Article was That if any after a Vow advisedly made did marry in so doing he should be adjudged as a Felon and lose both Life and forfeit Goods without any benefit of Clergy See Fox p. 1037. Now if any can make this Vow advisedly I see not how we can say that the Monks do not so unless you will say That any Breach of a Vow argues it not to have been formerly made with advice but then why are these Religious expresly restrained afterward from Marrying Stat. 31. Hen. 8.6 c. where also advisedly seems to be interpreted the vowing after One and Twenty Years old uncompelled As for the falsification of Miracles to discover and publish the Cheat is sufficient to cure the present Fault and to prevent the like and when the Images were taken away the Houses needed not to be pulled down § 96 And as unexcusable seems the King to be in taking away Chaunteries c given for the relief of the faithful deceased with some Imperfections by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and annual Alms and Prayers offered to God for them whilst he allowed a benefit in these things and himself left the like Pensions and ordered that the same things of which he had deprived others deceased should be done for himself when deceased as you may see at large in his Will transcribed by Mr. Fuller And therefore whereas Edward the Sixth had these things given him again by Parliament because Henry the Eighth dyed not long after the Donation upon this reason because the Opinions of Purgatory and Masses satisfactory to be done for them that be departed were vain and superstitious Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. Yet so it was that other causes and other grievances than these were glad to be invented to make way for King Henry to lay hands on them Stat. 37. Hen. 8.4 c. § 97 Fourthly 4. If it be said that the Religious themselv voluntarily resigned these Possessions into the King's hands See Stat. 31. Hen. 8.13 c. Yet was this Act of their's supposed never so free from Compulsion invalid because they could not give away for ever what they had Title to only for term of Life neither yet could they alienate them for their lives from that use to which they were dedicated without committing Sacriledge § 98 Fifthly Lastly That which is said 5. of an excessive number of them in this Nation if it be a just Apology for taking away some the Supernumerary yet will it be none for taking away all the rest And that which follows concerning their averseness to the King's Reformations is granted and shews indeed that the demolishing of them was to good purpose for attaining the Kings ends but it shews not that the demolishing therefore of them is lawful unless first such ends be justifiable and secondly cannot otherwise be compassed And thus much of the Kings destroying Monasteries § 99 By vertue of such a Supremacy by which he was conceived to have Power to dispense with any In the dispeasing with the former Church Canous conMarriages Fasts Holy-days c. if only humane tho Ecclesiastical Constitution See Stat. 25. Hen. 8.21 recited before § 27. He made Orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage against the former Ecclesiastical Canons See Stat. 32. Hen. 8.38 c. where it is said By this Act we i. e. the King and Parliament do declare all persons to be lawful that be not prohibited by Gods Law to marry Of which Licence saith Fuller Chur. Hist 5. l. p. 236. the King himself had the first fruits in marrying Katherine Howard Cosen-German to Anne Bullen his second Wife And you may find in the Preface of the same Act this urged also as a motive of casting off the Pope's usurped Power in such matters That King Henry was otherwise by Learning taught than his Predecessors in times past long time have been For King Henry was designed by his Father for a Church-man and during the life of his Elder Brother was educated in Learning and not unstudied in School Divinity Lord Herbert's Hist p. 2. Therefore in the first Articles of Religion which he put forth 1536 which were devised by the King himself and so recommended to the Convocation house by Cromwel part of which House saith Lord Herb. p. 405 leaned to the Lutheran Doctrine and Rites he took pains to peruse and moderate their Arguments on either side adding Animadversions with his own hand as may be seen in the Records And in the second Articles of Religion called a Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People published 1543. he carefully perused them saith
last Speech in Parliament 1545 Lord Herb. p. 536. I am very sorry to know and hear how irreverently that most precious Jewel the Word of God is disputed and jangled in every Ale-house and Tavern contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same I am sure that vertuous and godly living was never less used nor God never less reverenced or honoured Thus King Henry And this to shew you how and when this vulgar Theology first began and how much then so early it was relented by the Magistrate § 108 By vertue of such a Supremacy these things that King did some of them against the Canons not of Popes but of the Church Catholick and of Superior Councils and as some of them with for he used the consent of his Convocation more than his Successor so others of them without the consent of his Clergy whom saith Lord Herb. p. 439. he every day more and more devested of their former Authority And for the beginnings of his Reformation Arch-Bishop Parker in his Antiquit. Brittan p. 325. saith that Cromwellus cum Cranmero Archiepiscopo tanquam in puppi sedit clavumque Ecclesiae Anglicanae tenuit Nam Praelatorum fides eo magis dubia incerta Regi visa est quod long â morâ difficultate tanquam taedio abducti sint a Papa sibique Supremi Capitis titulum detulissent But whether these things done with or without his Clergy yet the stile of his Injunctions sufficiently sheweth in what person the legislative power in Spiritual matters was then conceived to reside these Injunctions running authoritatively and for the submission of all mens judgments to them either in his own name single as the Church's Supreme Head or in the name of his Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical Affairs Cromwel who therefore is ordered 31. Hen. 8.10 c. in regard of this Office and all those who should succeed him therein to sit in the Parliament-house above the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or in the name of the King and Parliament The usual Phrase of the King and Parliament in such Decrees you have seen in former instances where they do not ground these Decrees any further on the Authority of the Clergy save only on their recognizing of the Kings Supremacy upon which Supremacy all the rest are Super-structions § 103 Now hear the Stile of his Vicegerent Cromwel upon whom a Secular Person too and unlearned that the King should derive his whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority you may read in Lord Herb. Hist p. 402 what a wonderment it caused amongst many as a thing in no other time or person to be parallelled neither in the much pleaded Patterns of the Kings of Israel nor in the former practice of Popes This Vicegerent thus prefaceth to the Injunctions that were published 1536. I Tho. Cromwel c Vicegerent to our Sovereign Lord the King for and concerning all his Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm to the Glory of Almighty God to the Kings Highness's Honor the publick Weale of this Realm and increase of Vertue in the same have appointed and assigned these Injunctions ensuing to be kept and observed of the Dean Parsons Vicars c under the pains hereafter limited and appointed And the like Expressions much what are observed in the Injunctions set forth in 1538 〈◊〉 p. 1000 By the Authority and Commission of the most excellent Prince Henry in Earth Supreme Head under Christ of the Church of England I Tho. Cromwel Vicegerent c do for the discharge of the King's Majesty give and exhibit these Injunctions following to be kept and fulfilled c. First that ye shall truly observe all and singular the Kings Highness's Injunctions given unto you heretofore in my name by his Grace's Authority c. This is enough to shew where the legislative Power for Spiritual matters rested in Henry the Eighth's days After which Injunctions this is Mr. Fox's Epiphonema By these Articles and Injunctions saith he thus coming forth one after another for the necessary Instruction of the People but surely Mr. Fox had here forgot the Contents of the Kings first Articles which I mentioned before § 80. much contrary to the Reformed Doctrines conformable to the Romish it may appear how well the King deserved then the Title of his Supreme Government given unto him over the Church of England but to moderate Mr. Fox his Acclamations here let me put him in mind at another time in his esteem how ill he deserved it remembring his words set down before § 84. By the which Title and Authority he did more good for the redressing and advancing of Christ's Church and Religion here in England in those three years than the Pope the great Vicar of Christ with all his Bishops and Prelates had done in the space of three hundred years before CHAP. VIII The Actings of Edward the Sixth in Ecclesiastical Affairs THE Breach upon the Church's former Authority Doctrines § 104 and Practices being thus made by Henry the Eighth 2. The Actings of K. Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs No marvel if by his Successors it was much enlarged Next then to look into the actions of Edward the Sixth with relation to Church affairs This Prince being not yet ten years old when he came to the Crown was chiefly directed and steered by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and by his Uncle the Duke of Somerset who was made Protector of his Person and Realm not by the will of Henry the Eighth who dreaded to trust any one person with this Charge but by the major part of those sixteen persons to whom in common he committed the government of his Son and Kingdome Of which Duke Mr. Fox saith p. 1180 and 1248 That he bare great favour to Gods word and that he brought with him to the State of that his Dignity his ancient love and zeal Of the Gospel and of Religion he means reformed The proof whereof saith he p. 1183.1184 was sufficiently seen in his constant standing to Gods truth and zealous defence thereof against the Bishops of Chichester Norwich Lincolne London and others moe in the consultation about composing a new form of administring the Sacrament had at Windsor in the first year of the King's Reign So inclined was the Protector and so inclined were many of the Council § 105. n. 1 and some of those who were otherwise yet openly complyed with the prevailing party for secular ends and amongst these even Dudley the great Duke of Northumberland the chief Agent in the later times of Edward who confessed so much at his death he then exhorting the people See Stow An. 1553. Fox p. 1280. and Goodwin p. 278. That they should embrace the Religion of their Forefathers rejecting that of later date which had occasioned all the miseries of the forepast thirty years i. e. from the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Supremacy and that for prevention for the future they should expel those Trumpets of Sedition the Preachers of the reformed Religion and declaring
Comment it is plain enough and perhaps posterity might have done better to have covered this nakedness of their Forefather then to have published it after so long a silence § 106 Set down Now to proceed 1. First more generally It putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Honilies sending Commissioners thro the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy c. Thus this young Prince armed in such a sence with the Title of Supreme in Church-affairs and directed by such a Council did set forth from time to time nothing being deferred herein by reason of his nonage tho this much sued-for by some Bishops Injunctions concerning Religion and many of them in matters of faith and these contrary to the determinations and decrees of former obliging Councils Set them forth sometimes with the sole authority of this Council sometimes also with that of his Parliament without any precedent consultation with or consent of I say not some particular Bishops or Divines most of them known to be of the same inclinations with the Council as chiefly Cranmer and Ridley to whom I may add Latimer Hooper Rogers Coverdale but of any Ecclesiastical Synod of his Clergy the Act of which only hath force in such matters and usually without the precedent consent of other Bishops very considerable for their learning or place as Gardiner Bishop of Winchester Bonner Bishop of London Tonstal Bishop of Durham and one of the chosen Governors of the Kingdome Heath Bishop of Worcester and others And he imposed the same Injunctions so set forth upon the Bishops also and the rest of the Clergy to be submitted to by them as being the Orders of their Supream Head in Spirituals upon penalty of suspension imprisonment deprivation § 107 Of which actings of the King and State before we descend to particulars hear what Mr. Fox saith in great applause of them p. 1180 where after having told us That the Protector had restored the holy Scriptures to the Mother-Tongue had extinguished and abolished Masses and the Six Articles After softer beginnings saith he by little and little greater things followed in the Reformation of the Churches such as before were in banishment for the danger of the truth were again received in their Country to supply voided places and to be short saith he a new face of things began now to appear as it were on a Stage new Players coming in what needed this if the old consented to the Kings Mandates the old being thrust out therefore the consent of Clergy so much urged in the later end of this Kings Reign will be that of the new For the most part the Bishops of Churches and Diocesses were changed Such as had been dumb Prelates before were compelled to give place to other then that would preach and take pains .. Besides others also out of Forreign Countries which argues scarcity at home of these Clergy who would second the Kings Reformation men of learning and notable knowledge were sent for and received among whom was Peter Martyr Martin Bucer and Paulus Phagius he might have added to them Bernardinus Ochinus but that this man would do him no credit who we read in Coodwin p. 281. was packed away again with Peter Martyr in the beginning of Queen Mary 's Reign and three of these Martyr Bucer and Ochinus were Fryars forsaking the Cloister and marrying Wives after solemn Vows to the contrary Of whom saith he the first taught at Oxford the other two professed at Cambridge sure this was so appointed not because the Vniversities here at that time were not held so learned but because not accounted so orthodox as appeared shortly after in the beginnings of Queen Mary notwithstanding Martyrs and Bucers Lectures there He addeth And that with no small commendation of the whole University and I put in not without opposition of many learned men there disputing ex animo before the Kings Visitors against them and their Tenents as you may see in the solemn disputations had in Cambridge Fox p. 1250. c. Where I would recommend to your reading when at leisure the rational arguings and Apologies for the Church's Doctrines of Dr. Glyn and Mr. Langdale and others Members of the Vniversity of Cambridge against this reforming party and against the interlocutions of Bishop Ridley one of the Visitors As for the Oxford Oppositions Mr. Fox hath not communicated them There is extant P. Martyrs relation of them Fox p. 1255. perhaps not the most impartial yet wherein you may find in his Opponents Tresham Chadsey and Morgan much learning reverence to the Church and zeal in their cause and as we may gather from his Preface a conceived victory of whom there he saith Omnes anguli plateae domus officinae aenopolia adhuc eorum mentitos triumphos de me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resonant By which you may guess how the Vniversity of Oxford then stood affected Mr. Fox proceeds Of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward some to another Bonner Bishop of London was committed to the Marshal see Gardiner Bishop of Winchester with Jonstal Bishop of Duresme was cast into the Tower to whom may be added â—ox p. 1280. as appears out of Fox elsewhere Day removed from Chicester Heath from Worcester Vesy from Excester Likewise Pate Bishop of Rochester Goldwel Bishop of St. Asaph Bishop elect of Bangor are said to have been banished And some more might be removed in like manner who happen not to be mentioned because deceased before the Reign of Queen Mary as Wakeman Bishop of Gloucester Holbeck Bishop of Lincolne Skyp Bishop of Hereford Rugg Bishop of Norwich as may be probably conjectured from Mr. Fox his expressions but now rehearsed § 108 After this Mr. Fox goeth on to describe what course the King and that his Council took in the very beginnings of their power before any Parliament of Synod yet assembled to effect a Reformation in the Church The King saith he following the good Example of King Josias determined forthwith to enter into some Reformation of Religion in the Church of England Whereupon intending first a general Visitation over all the Bishopricks thereby as well to understand as also to redress the abuses of the same the chose out certain wife learned discreet and worshipful persons to be his Commissioners in that behalf and so dividing them into several companies assigned into them several Diocesses to be visited Appointing likewise unto every company one or two godly learned Preachers by which it seems the Commissioners were Laicks unless we say they appointed some godly Preachers to assist the Divines see the names of those for the Diocess of London Fox p. 1192. which Preachers at every Session should instruct the people in the true Doctrine of the Gospel and dehort them from their old Superstition and Idolatry And that they might be more orderly directed in this their Commission there were delivered unto them certain Injuctions and Ecclesiastical Orders drawn up by
compulsion See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law saith she unless it be a late law of your own making for the altering matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the name of a Law both for c and for the partiality used in the same But I am well assured that the King his Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal c. Thus the Lady Mary An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my remembrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector Sec before §. â—04 That in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor he in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops I have here on purpose thrown together thus many testimonies to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations and to manifest the more how neither the Prelates except those new ones whom King Edward advanced nor the inferiour Clergy neither at first nor at last were so conforming to the Kings proceedings as is pretended out of the charge against Winchester That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received c. § 126 To θ. 1. To θ. First That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward we do not find that the major part of the Clergy in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth year of the Kings Reign is pretended to have consented to any of them save one namely the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in the second year of the King and that consent was also had after this Book was first passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament as may be gathered 1. Both by the Act which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men which were in all fourteen whereof seven Bishops two of which were Cranmer and Ridley but not any concurrence or authority of a Synod See Heylin Sect 5.7 3â— But had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament this which was more would rather have been mentioned than the other which was less and which Act also by vertue of it self see before § 40. not of arty Synodical Act confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book 2. And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward which was authoritate Regis Parliamenti as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Which stile differs much from either of these A Rege Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus i. e that it might be established by the Church's authority or Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi Parliamento propositus i. e that being established by the Church it might be enjoyned also under temporal punishments by the State Laws Neither do the words following in that Article see them recited before § 110. Express any authoritative ratification but only a single testimony of their judgment concerning those Forms or say any thing which any other person void of authority may not use Now of this consent of the Convocations An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first Common-Prayer-Book a chief motive besides fear of punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments Injunctions or Laws was as I conceive this because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church as likewise the later Common-Prayer-Book more omissions but no declaration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine of which I shall say more by and by And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have staid here See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable tho these omissions I excuse not as faultless or not offending against former Church-Canons But his Reformation proceeded much further to the condemning also of the Church's tenents and practice which cannot be shewed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government of which I shall speak hereafter But as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions from the paucity of the number of those who were imprisoned or ejected in comparison of the rest the argument is not good First Because many more might dissent and refuse obedience thereto then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it Might Nay did dissent for the Parliament beggeth their pardon see before § 120 and it is accounted a prudent policy of State where very many are guilty only to punish some of the chief for Example sake Secondly And again many more might be ejected or questioned for this than are by name mentioned in Fox or others and were so if you consider the testimonies before cited Thirdly But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected yet as where all the rest unanimously accord this restraint of a few changeth not the Church-affairs so when such a body is divided and all the rest are not of one mind this withdrawing of a few especially if these be the prime Leaders and the introducing of so many new voters who are of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting six new ones in their places may render that which was before a major and the more prevalent now a lesser and a weaker part and consequently if they be unjustly withdrawn will render the Act of this major part invalid § 127 Secondly 2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer c. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy inforcing as other Ecclesiastical Injunctions of the King so also the new Form of Communion before it was proposed to any Parliament or Convocation for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies that I may spare the taedium of repeating them But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-civil-power had been removed from them touching which see their sad complaint before § 47 may be gathered 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Convocation the Six Articles and the the Necessary Doctrine 31. Hen. 8.14 c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days in the very beginning of which Arch-Bishop Cranmer called a Synod of them wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation but could not See
submitted-to by the Clergy as the King having the legislative power in these things by his Ecclesiastical Supremacy to be obeyed and submitted to by them upon penalties of suspension imprisonment deprivation c. and when upon this in the issue after some of the Clergy punished the rest do conform to the Kings commands Now which of these two were the proceedings of King Edward I refer the matter to the Story of those times and the testimonies above produced § 131 First And note here 1. That tho the whole Clergy should have submitted to such a Reformation yet cannot it be said to be their authentick Act at all or to be done but suffered by them as long as anothers command and force comes in especially where an after departure of a many of them shews us that their former compliance was feigned 2. That tho the submittance of the whole Clergy to such a Reformation had been ex animo and voluntary yet this rendereth not the former Imposition or Injunction of the King lawful or obligatory the lawfulness or unlawfulness of which cannot depend on an after casual event For I ask Suppose the Clergy generally had opposed them were these Injunctions justly imposed upon them by the King or not If not Then neither were they justly imposed tho the Clergy had consented because imposed before they consented whose consent is held necessary that they may be justly imposed But if justly imposed then why is the Clergy's consent or reception of such Injunctions at all urged here to justify them Suppose a Prince should first decide some Theological Controversy and then require submission thereto just on the same side affirmatively or negatively as a Synod of the Clergy would have done both these yet thus he taketh their office not rightly tho he manageth it not amiss And such Act will not be allowable because to the justifying of an action two things are requisite That the thing be right which is done That the person have lawful authority to do it § 132 3. That the King or State never sought for or pretended the Synods consent as authoritative to make the Kings or their Ecclesiastical Injunctions lawful or obligatory but required the duty of their obedience to these Acts of the Kings Supremacy which Supremacy was confirmed both by the Clergy's Recognition and Oath Which thing is sufficiently manifested in that many of the Kings Ecclesiastical Injunctions were set forth and did exact the Clergy's obedience to them before any Synods consent given or asked and when it was yet uncertain whether a major part would approve or condemn them But if you desire further evidence thereof I refer you to the matter delivered before In § 40 41. where you may see the Parliament Acts establishing such Laws without pretending or involving any Synodal authority nay giving authority by vertue of such Act to the Clergy to execute such Laws and In § 45 where you may see why it was necessary according to their principles that they should do so and In § 45 where you may see the obedience thought due in these matters to the regal Supremacy and the edicts issuing from it required to be subscribed by Winchester and In § 47 where you may see the description of the exauctorated State of the Clergy in those times and In § 103 where you may see the usual stile of Henry the Eighth whose Supremacy was no way remitted by his Son and In § 107. c. and § 113. the practice of Edward the Sixth which yet will be further declared in the following instances of his Supremacy W hen therefore the consent of Synod or Convocation is urged to the people or to some single person by the King or his Council it is not urged as an authority see the reason § 45. which these as subject to their decrees ought to obey but as an example which these as less knowing ought to follow But if the bare mentioning sometimes of the Clergy's consent argues this then thought necessary to the establishing of such decrees then would the mentioning of the consent of Parliament argue as much which is urged together with that of the Clergy and so no Ecclesiastical Acts of the King and Clergy would be obligatory unless confirmed by Parliament But this will destroy the authority of the 42 Articles made in the fifth year of King Edward ratified by no Parliament § 133 To λ To λ the Answer is prepared out of what hath been already said to θ. That before there had been any force used upon the Clergy a Reformation was endeavoured in a Synod by Arch-Bishop Cranmer but repelled That the vote of a Convocation after such violences first used after Clergy restrained or changed is not to be reckoned free That the major part only outwardly complyed for fear as is confessed by Protestants and seen both in their former decrees under King Henry and in their suddain recidivation I mean the Clergy not introduced by King Edward under Queen Mary That this consent of Convocation can only be urged for the Common-Prayer-Book but not for other parts of the Reformation which new Form of Common-Prayer omitted rather than gain-said the former Church-tenents and practice and these omissions not so many in the former Book of King Edward as in the latter That this consent of Convocation is not urged in the places cited as necessary to make the King and Parliaments Church-Constitutions valid but as exemplary to make others more conformable to them That the Bishops that framed this new Form of publick Service were but seven whereof those who survived till Queen Mary's time except Cranmer and Ridley returned to the Mass § 134 To μ. To μ. First Whether there was indeed any such Synodal Act as is here pretended in the times of King Edward shall be examined hereafter But Secondly Supposing for the present that there was so I answer besides that which is said in the Reply to λ and θ appliable to this That by this time the Clergy was much changed according to Mr. Fox's description made thereof before § 107 a many new Bishops introduced by King Edward several old ones displaced so that now after the State 's five years reforming Church-work to use Dr. Heylin's Phrase might more securely be committed to Church-men Yet that many also then for fear of the times either absented themselves from this Synod or in the Synod were guilty of much dissimulation as appears by their contrary votes soon after in the beginning of Queen Mary See before § 51. § 135 To ν. To ν. I answer That if such Synodal Acts were of the right Clergy and their Acts voluntary and unforced the Reformation here in England from the time of such Synods was as to this authority regular and canonical till reversed by the like authority But then this Reformation as it is supposed to be made by the Clergy is void upon another account viz. as being contrary to the former definitions
of lawful superiour Councils as may be seen in the several decrees of those Councils set down in Chur. Govern 4. Part compared with these 42 Articles and the Homilies approved by them CHAP. IX Continuation of the same descending to Particulars And of his first Change of the Publick Liturgy § 136 HAving thus described in general the way of King Edward's Reformation H. More particularly and exercising his Supremacy and partly examined the Apologies made for it we will now proceed to nominate to you the several particulars of his Reformation which is usually covered under the name of alteration only of some Rites and Ceremonies as if the Doctrines of the Church suffered no change under him In sending certain doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Win chester By vertue of such Supremacy then were sent those Articles to the imprisoned Bishop of Winchester to be subscribed containing several points of Doctrine or practice involving Doctrine some of which have been named before 45. proposed to his Subscription not as matters passed by any former Synod but saith the twentieth Article as published and set forth by the Kings Majesty's authority by the advice of hit Highnesse's Council for many great and godly considerations Fox p. 1235. Which Articles the Bishop is required there to subscribe publish and preach upon the pain of incurring such Penalties for not doing the same as may by his Majesty's laws be inflicted upon him § 137 By vertue of such Supremacy the Six Articles which contained matter of Doctrine and Faith Ia repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Hen 8. time Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. Fox p. 1036 and that in things of no small moment and which being determined and the observance of them enjoined as well by a Synod as a Parliament justly stand in force till a revocation of them by another Synod of like authority were repealed in the beginning of King Edward's Reign without any such Synod see Stat. 1. Edw. 12. c. and the Members of the Church of England freed from any further obedience to them By which it now became free for any tho having formerly made contrary vows to Marry to omit sacerdotal Confession to preach against the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass contrary to the decrees of former Councils and this National Synod § 138 Ia seizing on Religious houses and some Bishops lands and denying the lawfulness of Motastick Vows By vertue of such Supremacy this King I mean always the Council in the Kings name and by his authority not only justified the power used by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses but declared also Monastick Vows to be unlawful superstitious and unobliging Therefore the first Article drawn up for Winchester's Subscription was this That the late King Henry the Eighth justly and of good reason had caused to be suppressed and defaced all Monasteries Religious Houses c. and That the same being so dissolved the persons therein bound and professed to obedience to a person place habit and other superstitious Rites and Ceremonies are upon that order appointed by the Kings Majesty's authority as Supreme Head of the Church clearly released and acquitted of those Vows and Professions and at their full liberty as tho those unwitty and superstitious vows had never been made Thus the Article And hence it was that some formerly Monasticks in King Edward's days married Wives but this Doctrine his Supremacy did deliver contrary to the Doctrine which his Father's Supremacy published See before § 95. This King also continued his Fathers practice in seizing upon that piously devoted means which his Fathers suddain death after the concession of them by Parliament had left undevoured I mean Chaunteries Free-Chappels Colledges Hospitals c. See Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. But this he did upon another pretence than his Father by reason that his Doctrine herein varied from his Fathers His pretence being the unlawfulness of offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or giving alms for the defunct but his Fathers pretence who in his Doctrine justified these being quite another as you may see before § 92. And therefore the second Act of Parliament in his Stat. 37. Hâ—n 3.4 c. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. and in his Fathers time that agree alike in the donation of these Revenues yet vary in their prefaces and motives § 139 But in this he went beyond his Father that He began the taking of Bishops lands also Sacriledge now after the gain thereof was grown sweet keeping no bounds After therefore that learned and vertuous Prelate Tonstal left by his Father one of his Governors ejected He I mean his Council and Courtiers for happy was that King of his Child-hood that it preserved him unblameable for these things seized upon that rich and tempting Bishoprick of Durham Of which thus Bishop Godwin The removing of these obstacles the ejected Bishops made way for the invasion of their Widow-Sees For as soon as Tonstal was exauctorated that rich Bishoprick of Duresme by Act of Parliament was wracked the chief Revenues and Customes of it being incorporated to the Crown and the rest so guelded that at this day it scarce possesseth the third part of its ancient Revenues The hungry Courtier finding how good a thing the Church was had now for some years become acquainted with it out of zealous intent to prey Neither could the horridness of her sacred Skeleton as yet so work on him as to divert his resolutions and compassionately to leave the Church to her religious poverty Beside the infancy of the King in this uncertain ebb and flow of Religion made her opportune to all kind of Sacriledge So that saith he we are to thank the Almighty Guardian of the Church that these Locusts have not quite devoured the maintenance of the labourers in this English Vineyard Thus he concerning that Bishoprick who had he lived in these days might hare seen the multiplied generation of those Locusts devour his own Besides Duresme for any thing I can find the Bishoprick of Rochester after 1551 when Scory was removed thence and that of Westminster after 1550 when Thirlby was removed thence were enjoyed by the Crown until Queen Mary's days besides that of Worcester given in Commendam to Hooper to exercise the Jurisdiction and Episcopality thereof with some short allowance for his pains saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform under Edw. 6. p. 101. In which Author also see the spoyl committed in those days upon the Bishopricks of Bath and Wells p. 54 of Coventry and Lichfield of Landaff of Lincolne and others p. 100 101. 129. and elsewhere Sure foul things were done in this kind in those innovating times because I find even some of King Edward's favourite-Bishops highly to dislike them For Bishop Ridley in his Treatise Apud Fox 9. 1616. lamenting the State of England relates how he and Cranmer were both in high displeasure with the great ones for
that Synod whom the King after the Synod had appointed the Synod leaving this business to him to draw up such Ecclesiastical Laws and so I grant that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros qui erant pars aliqua Synodi London But that these Articles were published established or passed by that Synod I think there is good reason to deny from these relations which follow § 167 Where I will first transcribe you what Mr. Fuller Hist Eccles 7. l. p 420. who had perused the Records concerning it saith of this Synod or Convocation As for the Records of this Convocation saith he they are but one degree above blanks scarce affording the names of the Clerks assembled therein for which see also Heylin's Hist of Reform King Edw. p. 121. Indeed they had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business and no Convocation can hear complaints in Religion nor speak in redress thereof till a Commission be granted unto it from Regal authority Now the true reason why the King would not entrust the diffusive body of the Convocation with a power to meddle with matters of Religion was a just jealousy which he had of the ill-affection of the major part thereof who under a fair rind of Protestant Profession had the rotten core of Roman Superstition It was therefore conceived safer for the King to rely on the ability and fidelity of some select confidents cordial to the cause of Religion than to adventure the same to be discussed and decided by a suspected Convocation However this barren Convocation is entitled the Parent of those Articles of Religion 42 in number which are printed with this Preface Articuli de quibus c. as is recited before With these Articles was bound a Catechisme younger in age as bearing date of the next year but of the same extract relating to this Convocation as Author thereof Indeed it was first compiled as appears in the Kings Patent prefixed by a single Divine charactered pious and learned but afterwards perused and allowed by the Bishops and other learned men understand it the Convocation and by Royal authority commended to all Subjects commanded to all School-Matters to teach their Scholars Yet very few in the Convocation ever saw it much less explicitly consented thereunto But these had formerly it seems passed over their power to the select Divines appointed by the King In which sense they may be said to have done it themselves by their Delegates to whom they had deputed their authority A case not so clear but that it occasioned a Cavil at the next Convocation in the first of Queen Mary When the Papists i. e. all the Convocation save six persons therein assembled renounced the legality of any such former Transactions Thus Mr. Fuller one interessed in this matter on the other side § 168 Next if you would know the questioning of this Catechisme to which as well as the Articles was pretended the name of the Synod and the answer returned thereto In the Relation made thereof in Fox p. 1282. thus speaks the Prolocutor Dr. Weston to the Convocation concerning it For that saith he there is a Book of late set forth called the Catechisme bearing the name of this Honorable Synod i. e. the last which sate and yet put forth without their consents as I have learned being a Book very pestiferous and full of Heresies and likewise a Book of Common Prayer very abominable I have thought it therefore best first to begin with the Articles of the Catechisme concerning the Sacrament of the Altar to confirm the natural Presence of Christ in the same and also Transubstantiation for which conference the next Fryday being appointed Then saith the relation the Prolocutor exhibited two Bills unto the House The one for the forementioned Article of the Catechisme the natural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar the other concerning the Catechisme that it was not by that House's agreement formerly set forth and that they did not for the present agree thereunto requiring all them to subscribe to the same as he himself had done Whereunto the whole House did immediately assent except six Jo. Philpot one of the six Renegers stood up and spake first concerning the Catechisme That he thought they were deceived in the Title of the Catechisme in that it beareth the Title of the Synod of London last before this altho many of them which then were present were never made privy thereof in setting it forth for that this house had granted the authority to make Ecclesiastical Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty and whatsoever Ecclesiastical Laws they or the most part of them did set forth 3 4. Edw. 6.11 c. according to a Statute in that behalf provided it might well be said to be done in the Synod of London altho such as be of the House now had no notice thereof before the promulgation And that in this point he thought the setter-forth thereof nothing to have slandered the House as they by their Subscription went about to perswade the world since they saith he had our Synodal authority committed unto them to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary This concerning the questioning of this Catechisme and Articles in the beginning of Queen Mary's days and the Answer returned thereto But to clear the matter a little further We find in the same Fox p. 1704 after this Arch-bishop Cranmer in his tryal before the Commissioners at Oxford Brooks Bishop of Gloucester and others charged amongst other things with being the Author of this Catechisme and Articles and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them the former of which he there confesseth but denyeth the latter The words in Fox are 7th Interrog Item That the said Tho. Cranmer did fly and recuse the authority of the Church did hold and follow the Heresy concerning the Sacrament of the Altar and also did compile and caused to be set abroad divers Books Answer Whereunto when the names of the Books were recited to him he denyed not such Books which he was the true Author of As touching the Treatise of Peter Martyr upon the Sacrament he denyed that he ever saw it before it was abroad yet did approve and well like of the same As for the Catechisme the Book of Articles with the other Book against Winchester he granted the same to be his doings 8th Interrog Item That he compelled many against their wills to subscribe to the same Articles Answer He exhorted he said such as were willing to subscribe but against their wills he compelled none § 169 Having given you these three relations now to reflect a little on them First if you well consider the words in the Title of the Articles de quibus inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros c. they seem not the ordinary expresion of a Synodal Act which runs more generally as thus de quibus
convenit inter Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clerum universum or the like Next you may observe that tho the Prolocutor in the Synod 1º Mariae questioneth and Philpot answereth concerning the Catechisme why it should be published in the name of the Synod yet they both speak not of the Catechisme taken by it self but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of this Catechisme and bound up with it which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechisme and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation and so also calleth them the Catechisme because the first title of this Book is Catechismus brevis c. Now that they must speak of the Articles is plain because the Catechisme as taken by it self is not at all entitled to the Synod but only the Articles at the end thereof The Title of the Catechisme is only this Catechismus brevis Christianae disciplinae summam continens omnibus Ludimagistris authoritate regiâ commendatus Neither do those words in Philpot's Answer that the house had committed their Synodal authority to certain persons to be appointed by the King to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient c. agree at all to this Catechisme but to the Articles only For this Catechisme was made before by a private person that is by the Arch-bishop if we may believe his own confession related above and afterward approved only by some Bishops and other eruditi viri as the King saith in the Preface thereof Cum brevis explicata Catechismi ratio a pio quodam erudito viro conscripta nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur ejus diligentem inquisitionem quibusdam episcopis aliis eruditis commisimus quorum judicium magnam apud nos authoritatem habet quia conveniens cum scripturis c. visa est placuit non solum eum in aspectum lucemque proferre sed etiam propter perspicuitatem omnibus ludorum magistris ad docendum proponere c. Neither is this Catechisme abstracted from the Articles any such pestiferous Book or so full of Heresies as the Prolocutor complains of being composed in general terms for School-boys and not stating scarce touching any controversy Add to this that tho the Catechisme was not made by the Synod yet if the 42 Articles that were then printed and bound with the Catechisme were framed by it neither had the Prolocutor any reason to have fallen upon and gotten hands against the Catechisme as being falsly ascribed to that Reverend Assembly when as that which was far more opposite to that which he accounted the Orthodox Religion namely these Articles were known to be passed by them Neither would Philpot have concealed this matter since this known Act of the Synod composing these Articles would have justified that Act of the Delegates composing the Catechisme for the Doctrine of the Catechisme is contained in the Articles But if by this Catechisme both the Prolocutor and Philpot meant the Articles at the end thereof as it cannot be otherwise then Philpot hath revealed to us all the truth concerning the composing or ratifying of them and why in the impression they were ascribed to the Synod Namely because the Synod had given authority to those the King should nominate to make Ecclesiastical Laws and so by those persons being Episcopi alii eruditi viri were these Articles compiled or confirmed the Synod it seems leaving both this matter and the election of the persons for doing of it to the Kings care without reserving any review thereof to themselves contrary to the First Second and Sixth Theses But Mr. Philpot discovers the motive which this Synod if he meant this and not some former Synod might have to do this when he mentions a former Act of Parliament 3 4. Edw. 6.11 c. enstating the King in this power which Act was made two years before the Session of this Synod but then this is somewhat strange that what was acknowledged formerly as the Kings right is now made by Mr. Philpot the Clergy's concession to him Thus then were these Articles made not by but after the Synod and this is the reason why tho the production of such a Body of Articles would have been by much the solemnest Act of a Synod that was done in King Edward's days yet both the Records and the Historians Fox Godwin Antiquitates Britanicae and those others that I have seen are silent therein And the Arch-bishop to whom it would have been an excellent defence to have shewed them tho of his compiling yet to have been confirmed and generally subscribed by such a full Synod yet he also pleads no such thing And hence we may learn the reason of that which Dr. Heylin observeth p. 25. That tho a Parliament was held at this very time and that this Parliament had passed several Acts which concerned Church-matters as an Act for Vniformity of Divine Service and for the Confirmation of the Book of Ordination 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. An Act declaring which days shall only be kept for Holy-days and which for Fasting-days 3. c. An Act against striking or drawing any weapon in the Church or Church-yard 4. c. An Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests 12. c. Yet neither in this Parliament saith he nor in that which followed is there so much as the least Syllable which reflecteth this way or medleth any thing at all with the Book of Articles Thus Dr. Heylin Which Observation as to him it affords an Argument that Religion reformed in these Articles therefore can be called no Parliament-Religion so to me that it was also no Synodal-Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating or rather preventing the Synod in all other Transactions about the Reformation See before § 47. Neither can it be said improper to the Parliament to enjoyn obedience to these as well as it had done to other Church or Synod-decrees § 170 If it be urged here what Philpot urged of the Catechisme that these Articles are Synodical because the Synod conceded to the King the election of such persons who should frame and publish these Articles without any communicating them first to the Synod See the Answer returned to this before § 42. CHAP. XI The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical Affairs And of the unlawful Ejection of the Catholicks § 171 HAving thus from § 104. viewed the course of the Reformation under King Edward 3. The Acting of Qu. Elâ—z in Ecclesiastical matters now I pass to that under Queen Elizabeth one much interessed to renew an opposition to the Pope in as much as his pronouncing King Henry's Marriage with Anne Bullen her Mother unlawful invalidated her Title to the Crown Upon which Mary the Queen of Scots a Catholick All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and Edw. days being reversed by the Clergy iâ— Q. Mary's dâ—ys newly married to the Daulphin of France and animated by the
Quod in Missâ offertur verum Christi Corpus verus ejusdem Sanguis Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis 4. Item Quod Petro Apostolo ejus legitimis Successoribus in Sede Apostolicâ tanquam Christi vicario data est suprema potestas pascendi regendi ecclesiam Christi militantem fratres suos confirmandi 5. Item Quod authoritas tractandi definiendi de iis quae spectant ad fidem Sacramenta disciplinam ecclesiasticam hactenus semper spectavit spectare debet tantum ad Pastores ecclesiae quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc in ecclesiâ Dei posuit non ad Laicos In which Article penned with some tender sense of the invasion which formerly in King Henry and King Edward's days had been made upon the Clergy-rights both the Regal and Parliamentary power being excluded totally by a tantum ad Pastores not only a definiendo but a tractando not only quae ad fidem but quae ad disciplinam ecclesiasticam spectant I suppose made the University so cautious to subscribe thereto Quam nostram assertionem affirmationem fidem nos inferior Clerus praedistus vestris Paternitatibus tenore praesentium exhibemus humiliter supplicantes ut quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam intentionem aliter illis quorum in hac parte interest notificandi Vos qui Patres estis ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis Quâ in re officium charitatis ac pietatis ut arbitramur praestabitis saluti gregis vestri ut par est prospicietis vestras ipsi animas liberabitis § 176 These were the last words and testament as it were of the ancient Clergy now expiring seeing their definitive authority assumed by the Laity and upon this a flood of innovations coming upon them Which Protestation of theirs remaineth upon record to all generations to shew that in the Reformation the Laity deserted their former Guides and Spiritual Fathers the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's and Queen Mary's days all constant to the ancient Church-doctrines saving only Supremacy for King Henry's time and also in King Edward's days the major part of this Clergy tho externally guilty of some dissimulation yet inwardly retaining the same judgment as may be seen by what is acknowledged above § 122. c. and 127. § 177 This Declaration of the Clergy and Universities was ended in the Queens proposal of a Disputation in Westminster Church A Disputation between the Bishops and the reformed Divines between some of the Bishops and others of Queen Mary's Clergy and some of the reformed Divines lately returned home from beyond Sea Of which Disputation the Lord Keeper Bacon one of the Protestant Religion was appointed the Moderator The three Questions which were proposed by the reforming party to the Bishops to be the subject of the Conference were these 1. It is against the word of God and the Custome of the ancient Church to use a tongue unknown to the people in Common-Prayer Fox p. 1924. and the administration of the Sacraments 2. Every Church hath authority to appoint take away and change Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Rites so the same be to edification 3. It cannot be proved by the word of God that there is in the Mass offered up a Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead Of which questions to pass by the first there being nothing either in the former Convocation-Articles or in any decree of former Church against the lawfulness of having the Divine Service in a known tongue which is all that the Reformation desires in this matter and which could be no occasion of difference among Christians were all other Controversies of Doctrine well composed In the second Question it seems to me somewhat strange that whereas the Convocation speaks chiefly of the authority of defining points de fide and contends that the authority of defining such points belongs not to the Laity or to any Civil Power but only ad Pastores and whereas also the main of the Reformation consists in altering such Doctrines belonging to Faith and not in altering some Rites and Ceremonies yet the question here stretcheth no further than to Rites and Ceremonies and then speaks of these as alterable not by the Laity or a Civil Power but by a particular Church i. e. as I suppose by the Clergy thereof And then leaves us in the dark also whether this particular Church be put here as contradistinct only to other particular Churches on which it is independent and hath this power granted to it by all or be put as contradistinct to the Church Vniversal or to Superior Councils on which surely it hath some dependance Again in the last question it seems as strange that whereas the Convocation in their Preface founds this Article together with the rest on Primitive and Apostolical Tradition as well as on Scripture Publico christianarum gentium consensu c. atque ab Apostolis ad not usque c. And whereas the reformed in the first question where seemed some advantage add the custome of ancient Church to the testimony of the Scriptures and in their Preface promise adherence to the Doctrines and Practice of the Catholick Church unless there be some evasion in the limitation there used Fox p. 1930. where they say by Catholick Church they mean that Church which ought to be sought in the holy Scriptures and which is governed and led by the Spirit of Christ Yet here they use that restraining Clause it cannot by the word of God be proved the judgment of the ancient Church the authoritative expounder of the word of God being indeed in this matter very clear against them See Discourse of Eucharist § 92.111 c. § 178 If you would know what end this Disputation had it is thus set down in Cambden Hist. Eliz. An. Dom. 1559. That all came to nothing for that after a few words passed to and fro in writing they could not agree about the manner of disputing The Protestants triumphing as if they had gotten the victory and the Papists complaining that they were hardly dealt withal in that they were not forewarned of the questions above a day or two before and that Lord Keeper Bacon a man little versed in matters of Divinity and a bitter enemy of the Papists sate as Judge whereas he was only appointed as Moderator or keeper of Order But the very truth is that they weighing the matter more seriously durst not without consulting the Bishop of Rome call in question so great matters and not controverted in the Church of Rome exclaiming every where When shall there be any certainry touching Faith Disputations concerning Religion do always bend that way as the Scepters incline and such like And so hot were the Bishops of Lincolne and Winchester that they thought meet that the Queen and the Authors of this falling away from the Church of Rome should be stricken with the censure of Excommunication But
the wiser sort resolved that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome lest they being Subjects should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince and take up the banner of Rebellion Thus Cambden Now the contention about the manner of disputing which Cambden omits was what side should speak last which the Bishops because of their dignity desired to do after having observed Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked But this the Queens Council would not yield to them the first agreement being pretended contrary and so that conference ceased After this Disputation followed the suppressing sect 179. n. 1. The Regâ—l Suâ—remancy and all that K. Edw. hâ—d done in the Refâ—rmâ—tioâ— now re-established by the Queen and Paâ—liament of the Mass of the Popes Supremacy of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigor by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy in all those spiritual Jurisdictions which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary and upon pretence that the Crown could not be supported with such honor as it ought to be if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembred from it all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary Besides which because there were many Impropriations and Tithes by dissolution of Religious Houses invested in the Crown the Queen kept several Bishopricks void till she had taken into her hands what Castles Mannors and Tenements she thought good returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes but this an extended instead of the other old rent Bishopricks being thus kept void also in following times one after another upon several occasions saith Dr. Heylin till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it See his History of Queen Elizabeth p. 120 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. c. sect 179. n. 2. Again Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer but altered first in some things by eight Learned men all of the reformed party and non-Bishops to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen In which review saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Elizabeth p. 111. there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. see before § 160. The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it The Body of our Lord c. Take and eat lest saith that Author under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers Likewise the Rubrick about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground And to come up closer saith he to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood as also the Altar in the Queens own Chappel was furnished with rich Plate two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124. that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus Musick retained in the Church Festivals observed c. Thus Dr. Heylin And some such thing likewise was observed if you will give me leave to digress a little by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion both concerning Real Presence For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words Since as the Holy Scriptures testify Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the world It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out and concerning Church Authority and Church Ceremonies For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days being taken with the Geneva-way were when they returned great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Eâ—â—land and of Church-authority in general therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ' The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence Insomuch as when one of her Divines see Heylin's Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 124. had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complyed so far as to resort to the Mass see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist in answer to a Priest desiring her judgment therein are well known 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies and great Opposer of the Puritans see before § 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist p. 144. c. several of whom tho in such a scarcity of Divines she preferred in the beginning of her Reign as Sampson to be Dean of Christ Church Whittington to be Dean of Durham Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge c Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her And when Alexander Nowel Dean of Pauls had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression and to return unto his Text. Heyl. Hist. p. 124. But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queens days in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad and by Peter Martyr and others here at home and that tho some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived
190 NOW instead of these Catholick Bishops expelled being all that then sate Concerning the defects of the Qu. Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days save only Anthony Bishop of Landaff whom Cambden calls the Calamity of his See and who I think can be much challenged by no side in Henry the Eighth's time in Edward the Sixth's in Queen Mary's in Queen Elizabeth's still acquiescing for his Religion on the Princes direction the Queen had onely six others surviving since King Edward's time out of whom to raise her new Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Scory Bishop of Chicester Coverdale of Excester Barlow of Bath two Suffragan Bishops of Bedford and Thetford and one Bale Bishop of Ossery in Ireland amongst whom was no Metropolitan and of whom but one was consecrated in Henry the Eighth's days the other five in King Edward â—s whose times were full of uncanonical Proceedings and liable to several exceptions Again two of which Bishops Scory and Coverdale in King Edward's time came as is said into Bishopricks not void Besides that on another account they as also Barlow were lawfully ejected in Queen Mary's days as being marryed persons two of them Barlow and Coverdale doing this contrary to the Canons both as Priests and as Religious The later of whom also going beyond-Sea in Q. Mary's days there turned Puritan as they are called and in the troubles of Frankford was one of the Opposers of the Common-Prayer-Book of England and after his return See Bishop Bramhal 's Consecrat of Protestant Bishops jâ—stified â—ollinsheâ—d p. 1309. 26. Heâ— 8.14 c. 1 2. Mar. 8. c. at the Consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker refused to wear an Episcopal habit as is found upon Record nor would resume his Bishoprick of Excester but to his dying day lived a private Preacher in London William Allen in the second year of Queen Elizabeth being made Bishop of Excester in his stead As for the Suffragan Bishops as they were in a way and manner differing from former times first set up by King Henry so were they put down again by Qu. Mary and quite laid aside under Queen Elizabeth § 191 This for the reformed Bishops that are said to remain from King Edward's days Concernâ—â—g the defect of the nâ—w Bishop Oâ—dained in Qu. Elâ—zâ—beth'â— days now touching the new ones who were made by Queen Elizabeth I think not fit to trouble my Reader here with an exact discussion of the validity of their Orders by reason of defects either in the Ordainers or the Ordained since such a discourse for the most part Scholastick disputing of the Character Matter Form Intention c. essentially required for the conferring of this Sacrament may better come out in a Treatise a part then interrupt this Historical Narration Concerning these new Bishops and Prieststhen I will briefly only observe two or three things whereof the first shall be the judgment and esteem the Catholick Church has made of these and the like Orders the second that tho these Orders be supposed valid yet were they certainly unlawful and against the Canons and moreover unprofitable yea noxious to those who conferred and received them As to the first sect 192. 1. the new Ordination grew so far suspected as deficient to Queen Mary that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one That touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders Fox p. 1295. after the new sort and fashion of Orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Bishop Bramhal indeed urgeth this following passage out of Cardinal Pool's Dispensation to prove Consecrat of Protestant Bishops justified 3. c. p. 63. that King Edward's new Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Mary's days by Cardinal Pool by the Pope confirming his Acts and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England Ac omnes Ecclesiasticas saeculares ceu quorumvis Ordinum Regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta â—â—m Ordines quaâ—â— Beneficia Ecclesiastica ceu alias Spirituales matâ—rias praetensâ supremitate authoritatis Ecclesiasticae Anglicanâ— licet nulliter de facto obtinuerint ad cor reversae peâ—â—onae ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus Beneficiis per nos ipsos ceu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in Domino dispensabimus From which words of the Cardinal the Bishop argueth That If King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations which was required by the Institution of Christ then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirm their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church Thus the Bishop But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument you may observe that the Cardinal very cautiously here First saith not dispensamus or recipimus in the present as he doth in every one of his other dispensings throughout the whole Instrument tho in matters uncanonical dispensamus relaxamus remittimus concedimus c. in the present Tense but here dispensabimus in the future And Secondly saith not singlely dispensabimus but recipiemus per nos ipsos seu deputatos which reception per nos seu deputatos was not necessary for a dispensation with a matter only uncanonical And Thirdly saith not recipiemus simply but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt referring to the manner of the reception which had been used formerly in this Queen's days which we find set down in the Queen's thirteenth Article viz. That such new ordained repairing to the Bishop and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders as they being before not ordered in very deed And this is the Reason why the Cardinal could not apply in this Instrument a present recipimus or dispensamus for these Ordines as he doth for other things tho here he ingageth to make good to every one such orders as they then bare the title of This is a sence of which the Cardinals words are very capable and seem also to favour and which accords well with the Histories of those times whereas that which the Bishop puts upon them makes them to contradict the publick actions and proceedings both before and after the passing of this act For that the Cardinal when Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Roman Bishops held not the Orders received by the new Form sufficiently valid quoad Characterem as it may be gathered from Queen Mary's thirteenth Article forecited and first considered no doubt by her Bishops so it is clear from the Bishop of Gloucester the Popes Legate his degrading Ridley
he saith Authoritate Rex propriâ resecare potest superstitiones quas sacerdotes ipsi tolerant but he saith not quas sacerdotes ipsi docent nen esse superstitiones Again p. 364. he speaks thus of a thing done In Israele praecipuae in re religionis partes penes Regem extiterunt vel uno hoc argumento quod per sacrae historiae seriem totam mutato novi regis animo mutata semper est facies religionis Nec Pontifices unquam vel praestare poterant ut fieret mutatio in melius vel ne fieret in pejus impedire And p. 368. Passim per fastos sacros quod in religione fit a rege fieri diserte dicitur Regis factum esse Pontificis haud unquam nisi ex Regis mandato But I hope he will not hence infer that summa religionis is not penes Pontifices if the Prince apostatizeth from the true Religion or that the Church Governors may do nothing contra Regis mandatum nor may oppose him and teach the people contrary to his Reformations where they judge that he reformeth not aright what did the Church-Governors for the first 300 years Especially since p. 377. which I desire you much to mark he alloweth such Ecclesiastical Primacy as the good Kings of Israel used not to all but only to Christian Princes and to Christian Princes not all but only those not heretical and I suppose he would say also not schismatical for if the Prince were heretical or schismatical he well saw the mischief of such a power so he saith there Interim autem sit vel infidelis Princeps sit vel haereticus Oretur pro eo non minus quam pro Nebuchadonozar nemo vitae ejus insidietur non magis quam Ahasueri Fidem penes semet habeant Christiani subditi coram Deo caeteris in rebus pietatem colant Non ergo id agitur ut ecclesiae persecutores ecclesiae gubernatores habeantur c. And something toward this saith Mr. Mason de Minist 3. l. 5. c. if I rightly understand him Regibus qui vel non sunt christiani vel si christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen sancti primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid i. e. quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii none such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship unless the Author seek for some refuge in the Epithets rectus plenus illustris And the same saith Bishop Bicson When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of infidelity and heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which question he answers The Metropolitan Now if no Prince heretical tho Christian hath any Primacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs before we yield such Primacy to a Prince we must know whether he be not heretical and who can so rightly judge of this as the Church or Clergy And then will not the Church and is it not right to judge him such when he opposeth her present or former definitions in matters of Faith See Church Govern 3. Part § 42. And what just Supremacy then for matter of Doctrine is left here to the Prince but an authorizing by his coactive power the Church's decrees Which Regal Supremacy all sides allow But as I said this is contrary to what Bishop Andrews saith elsewhere that the Princes Supremacy may oppose the Clergy when they do i. e. when he thinks they do recedere de viâ non docere juxta legem Dei c. § 203 The fourth Author I shall produce is Mr. Thorndike who writing very rationally and resolutely in vindication of the Church's authority Of Mr. Thorndike as using his Pen against modern Sectarists yet takes care also to save the Phaenomena of the Reformation He therefore in his Right of the Church 5. c. p. 248. after he had with much freedome shewed That the Succession of the Clergy in such a Government as that the visible Communion of the whole Church might be perpetually kept in unity See before §. 188. was a Law ordained by the Apostles and That the Reformation made in England had plainly violated this Law in that the new Bishops that were introduced were made without and against the consent of the former some of his words are cited before § 200. taketh this course to solve this difficulty and to preserve the English Reformation notwithstanding this from being unlawful or schismatical To come then saith he to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continual Succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity of the Church c. But withal it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works c. which proceeding from the same if not a greater power than the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same religion and conscience as the succession of the Church Again I have shewed indeed that the secular power is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical in their determining all things which are not otherwise determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the power of the Church is trusted shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Here Mr. Thorndike holds 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 Governors of the Church and may for a penalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho they also be established by another Law Apostolical Which was the thing I undertook to shew you § 204 But to say something to this discourse of his What reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and the succession of the Clergy doth oppose Which Clergy sure will never confess such to be a law of our Lord but always will
profess the contrary nay will say that the succession of the Clergy shall keep teach and maintain our Lord's laws to the end of the world This question he asketh not he solveth not as writing against the Presbyterians who will not ask it him But what can he say Shall the Clergy judge They deny it to be the Lord's law what he against their consent would restore Shall the Prince judge But this is most unreasonable that the judgment of a Laick shall be preferred before the whole succession of the Clergy in Spiritual manters And what mischief will come hereupon if he judge amiss And here let me set before him his own rules Right of Chur. 4. c. p. 235. Such a difference falling out saith he i. e. between the secular power and the Bishops so that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right as how can it be clear to particular persons which is not to their guides in those matters and which is not to other particular persons who also think the contrary clear it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns But if this his answer that the Prince may suppress the Apostolical power of the Clergy when this goeth against other our Lords or the Apostles Laws be unsatisfying to the great difficulty he proposeth I know not what other can possibly be returned to that his objection And I wonder that this considerative man who holds not the Pope to be Anti-Christ or the Hierarchy of the Church to be the followers of Anti-Christ should make such a supposition as this that the Apostolical Succession of the Clergy should oppose our Lords or the Apostles laws so far as that we shall depend on the Laity to restore them and to protect Christianity against their Guides § 205 The fifth is Dr. Heylin Whose testimonies justifying King Edward and Queen Elizabeth's reforming by their own sole authority Of Doctor Heylin or only with the advice of some few of their Clergy where they perceived that the rest would not comply See before § 129. Yet this their reforming I have shewed to have been for some part of it in matters of Doctrine and Faith To which former testimonies I will add here Reform Jâ—stisted p. 86. 1. First what he saith concerning the Clergy's not having any lawful power to conclude any thing in Spiritual matters that may bind King or Subject till the Royal authority confirmeth it contrary to the first Thesis It is true saith he the Clergy in their Convocation can do nothing now but as their doings are confirmed by the Kings authority And I conclude it stands with reason that it should be so For since the two Houses of Parliament can conclude nothing which may bind either King or Subject in their civil rights until they be made good by the royal assent so neither is it fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters what not in such as Prince and People grant to intrench upon no civil Right until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them What if such supreme Governor be an Heretick an Arrian an Anabaptist c Ib. p. 84.2 2. What he saith concerning the King of England's having lawful power to act without his Clergy as the Clergy having conferred on him all their power which they formerly enjoyed in their own capacity Which was Philpot's Plea recited before § 168. contrary to the Second Thesis The Kings of England saith he had a further right as to this particular which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of recognition or concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme authority not only of confirming their Synodal Acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which firmly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this To reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel case in the Roman Empire in which the supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they called Lex Regia they transferred all their power on Caesar and the following Emperors Which Law being passed the Edicts of the Emperor were as binding as the Senatus-consulta had been before Whence came that memorable Maxime in Justinians Institutes Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for the Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after following they transferred that power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the power of the Convocation so was it as good in law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it And tho in most of their proceedings toward Reformation the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them or could assemble without trouble yet was there no necessity that all or the greatest part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose no more than it was anciently for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church or for the godly Kings of Judah to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Levites before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses which were crept in amongst them Thus Dr. Heylin p. 84. § 206 Indeed elsewhere he seemeth to put some limitations to the Prince's acting in such matters without or against their Clergy but then these limitations are such as that the reforming Prince's acts have transgressed his Rules To this purpose he saith p. 80 81. That whereas Reformation may be first in corruption of manners or abuses in Government secondly in matters practical thirdly in points of Doctrine 1. First That if the things to be reformed be either corruptions in manners or neglect of publick duties to Almighty God be abuses either in Government or in the parties governing the King may reform this himself by his sole authority tho the whole body of the Clergy or the greatest part thereof should oppose him in it 2. That if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church the King consulting with so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Clergy as he thinks fit to call
warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote p. 73. especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned men of the Church to be the law of Christ shall he not preform his known duty till the vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it And here I suppose Dr. Fern will grant that the Prince is bound also to establish Christ's Law in which he is accountable if he do amiss 9. c. § 21. whenever it should happen to be evidenced to him by any other tho none of or contrary to the Clergy provided that be first consult and hear the reasons of some at least of his Clergy 3. That Princes may prohibit the decrees even of General Councils when they are evidenced to them non docere legem Christi 9. c. 28. § General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their decrees as was done by Theodosius against the second Council of Ephesus and by the Kings of France against the Conventicle of Trent forbidding the decrees of it to be received for the space of fourty years 4ly 9. c. 21. § He approveth The concession of the Clergy under Henry the Eighth in binding themselves by promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to enact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the Kings assent Which assent were it required only for securing the Prince that nothing be acted in such Synods prejudicial to his civil rights 't is willingly allowed but it is extended further for the Prince's prohibiting any other decrees whatever when not evidenced to him to be made juxta legem Christi against which if any thing be done in his dominions he remaineth accountable to God as you have seen before § 210 Now to reflect on what Dr. Fern hath said He seemeth 1. first to grant that the Clergy can publickly establish nothing against or without the Prince's consent So that whatever they cannot evidence to the Prince that so he may concur to the publishing thereof they are hindred from promulgating or evidencing it to the people So that they are in such a manner the ordinary Judges and Definers of Controversies as that their definitions if not evidenced to may be suppressed by the Prince nor ought to come abroad to their flocks And how consists this with what he saith 9. c. § 21. That in order to our believing we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded I suppose he meaneth to us by the Pastors of the Church Again how consists this with the Clergy's coercive power 9. c. 19. § upon the Prince if Christian when obstinately gain-saying them Unless his gain-saying can never be called obstinate Will not this follow from hence that the Clergy might not promulgate Anti-Arrianisme in the Empire until they had evidenced it i. e. by his approbation thereof to Constantitus the then Emperor 2. When he saith That a Prince is not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod but only of some faithful Bishops c. when he hath just cause to fear faction in such Synods he seems in this only to keep a gap open for justifying they past Reformation and in effect to affirm that the Prince may go therein against his Clergy For since the Clergy is a subordinate and regularly-united body he that taketh directions only from some of them whom he knows or doubts and fears to be different in their judgment from the main body taketh directions not from the Clergy but from those that are against them as hath been laid down in the sixth Thesis I mean against them that are the Judges in Spiritual matters and the Definers of things in Controversy and Judges of Heresy what hath been or ought to be condemned as such Without whom therefore the Prince cannot certainly know what is or is not such As for that which is said that the establishments of the Prince are not in order to our believing if Dr. Fern meaneth that the Prince doth not propose what is evidenced to him to be the law of Christ to his Subjects with a requiring of them that they should believe that it is the law of Christ the contrary is clear at least in the practicals enjoyned all which necessarily involve Faith See Chur. Gover. 2. Part 34. § 3. Part 12. § But if he meaneth that the Subjects cannot justly be necessitated to believe what the Prince establisheth so neither are they what the Clergy establisheth in his opinion who I think alloweth to all men judicium disoretivum in respect of any Church-authority 3. The Prince thus establishing Church-matters not upon the Clergy's authority but upon evidence he seems equally to oblige the Prince to establish them by whomsoever evidenced to him or by his own search discovered for what mattereth it to the evidence who bringeth it And then how is the Prince's judgment said to be secondary in respect to the Clergy Indeed if the Prince could always be certain in his evidence so as not to mistake to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and not to think other things sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church-matters thus to his disposal But fince things are much otherwise and evidencing truths to any one by reason of different understandings education passions and interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign power when not patient enough to be informed mis-led and prepossessed by a faction not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c what an uncertain and mutable condition would Church-affairs be put in as we see they have been here in England since the times of Henry the Eighth when all the influence of the authority of the Clergy upon the people is cast upon this evidenceing first of their matters to the present Sovereign Power § 211 Concerning Theodosius's Act urged by Dr. Fern the Story in brief is this The second Ephesine Council was General in its Representation but not in the free votes of the Representatives nor in the acceptation thereof by all or the major part of Catholick Churches In it paucis imprudentibus about some Ninety in all obviantibus sacramento verae
divinitatis humanitatis Jesu Christi by necessary consequence which was established in the Council of Nice superior to this in number and universally accepted Ex iis qui convenerant rejectis aliis amongst which the Legates of the Bishop of Rome and Western Churches aliis subscribere coactis a militibus cum fustibus gladiis reclusis in ecclesia usque ad vesperam Upon such reasons the Bishop of Rome See cons. Chalced. Act. 1. and th Synod of the Occidental Churches with him not accepting the decrees of this Council supplicated the Emperor See Leo. Epist 23. ad Theod. not to confirm but cassate the Acts thereof and defendere contra haraeticos inconcussum ecclesiae statum sending him the Canons of the Council of Nice Now thus a Prince both may and ought to cassate the Acts of an illegal Council such as you see this is but now described to be when a major Ecclesiastical power I mean the greater part of the Church Catholick declareth it to him to be factious and opposing the truth and definitions of former General Councils universally accepted Neither doth the Prince herein exercise any Supremacy but that which all allow namely the defending and protecting of the Church's judgments But therefore a Prince may not oppose the Acts of a Council when himself or a few others against the main body of the Church judge it to have been factious or to have opposed or not to have sufficiently evidenced the truth The former was the case of Theodosius The later of the Reformers Of which Theodosius how religious an observer he was of the Church's decrees and how free from challenging any such Supremacy as to alter or establish any thing against them see his cautious message to the first Ephesine Council when he sent Candidianus to preside therein Concil Epoes Tom. 1. Eâ lege Candidianum Comitem ad sacram vestram Synodum abire jussimus ut cum quaestionibus controversiis quae circa fidei dog mata incidant nihil quicquam commune habeat Nefas est enim qui S. Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est illum ecclesiasticis negotiis consultationibus sese immiscere From which all that I would gain is this That Theodosius was of opinion that no Lay-person whatsoever might so far interest himself in Religious and Episcopal Controversies not as to make himself Arbitrator of the Conciliary proceedings to see that the votes thereof be free from Secular violence and all things therein regularly carried c. for this is his duty who beareth that Sword which keepeth men most in awe but as to make himself Arbitrator of the Councils Definitions to examine whether they are made secundum or contra legem Christi and to prohibit them when not evidenced to him by the Council to be so because he is Custos utriusque Tabulae for in these things it is his duty to submit to whatever is the judgment of those who are appointed by Christ to interpret to Princes his Law A Prince therefore may void the Acts of a Council freely on this account because such Council is unduly carried and its decrees not accepted by the Catholick-Church and so because its doctrines are not the doctrines of the Church but never on this account because such Council hath made some definition to him seeming contrary to the Law of Christ or hath not evidenced to him their definition to have been according to it So that a lawful Regal Supremacy in confirming any definitions of the Clergy made in Spiritual matters omitteth that clause of limitation which is every where put in by Dr. Fern when evidenced to it to be the law of Christ or when the law of Christ is not evidenced to be contrary to their definitions which is indeed the chief Pillar of the Reformation and changeth it into this limitation when evidenced to it to be the Law or Judgment or Sentence of the Church The instance in the King of France his forbidding the decrees of the Council of Trent hath been largely spoken to in Chur. Gover. 4. Part § 212 64. § 7. n. 1 No decrees of that Council concerning matters of Faith or Doctrine were opposed by the French King but only some decrees concerning Reformation 2 His opposition of it further than he can pretend it to have some way encroached on his civil rights is not justifiable and by his own Clergy as well as the rest of the world disallowed § 213 Lastly the instance in the good Kings of Judah inculcated so frequently by all these Writers is copiously spoken-to in Succession of Clergy § 38.68 1. As the Kings of Judah had a charge of conserving the true Religion by their coactive power with temporal punishments on offenders and were justly blamed for their defects herein So had the Priests by their coercive power with their Spiritual censures and were as justly blameable as the Prince in any neglect thereof 2. It cannot be shewed in holy writ that the Princes of Judah ought not and did not both in their Reformations of Religion ask counsel of the Priests and exactly follow their advice and decrees except in such matters of duty as were not controverted at all nor contradicted by the Priest Now where no doubt is made by any party there needs no consultation and the Prince may tell the Priest of his unquestioned duty without asking his leave 3. It cannot be shewed that the Princes of Judah ever reformed any thing against the judgment of the whole body or of the major part of the Priests I mean those Priests who continued in their former profession of the Law of Moses and did not professedly relinquish it and openly apostatize to Idolatry with whom being extra ecelesiam the Prince had nothing to do 4. It cannot be shewed there that the Priests might not lawfully have reformed Religion without or against the Prince nor that they did not at some times endeavour it with inflicting their Spiritual censures tho successless herein whilst opposed by the Temporal power We are to take heed of negative arguments from Scripture such a thing is not said there therefore it was not but rather ought to infer the contrary to this is not said there therefore it might be 5 The Kings part in the Reformation being acted with Temporal power therefore was successful and went thro with the business and having the chief or only success therefore is most spoken of especially in those Books which were written for Histories of the Kings Acts. And indeed when have not Princes by reason of this their Secular power had the greatest reputation for altering of Religion even where the Clergy have been most active See the doctrine of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this point of Supremacy set down already in Chur. Gover. 1. Part § 39. c. And of Bishop Bramhal in Cathol Thes Head 9. § 17. § 214 The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of these Princes transcending that ch lâ—eaged
by the Patriarchs Thus much concerning the English Reformations under the three Princes Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth what manner of Ecclesiastical Supremacy was conceded to or recognized in them what exercised by them Where it is evident that tho these Princes pretended only to translate upon themselves the Supremacy formerly used by the Patriarch not forgetting to seize on most of the profits thereof yet theirs was far from being restrained within the same bounds as the Patriarch's was For whether we review the pretended innovations introduced into the Church Catholick before or those introduced since the Council of Trent by the Patriarch's concurrence We cannot say of them that He without out or assisted only with some few of the Clergy imposed them upon the world by his single authority without or contrary to the votes of the major part of the Clergy as King Edward and Queen Elizabeth did Who had they called a Synod of their Clergy and then behaved themselves in it as Constantine in the Council of Nice i. e. left all in pure Spiritual matters to their disposal judge what would have been the issue But it seems by the proceedings forementioned in this Discourse that the Secular Supremacy took it to be the Prince's right to establish in their dominions with or without the major part of the Clergy which they were instructed might fall away from the truth a tenent the Patriarch owns not what they apprehended to be the Law of Christ upon evidence of Scripture i. e. to them so seeming by whomsoever manifested unto them From which apprehensions in single and unstudied persons very mutable and having no such fixedness as the body of the Church hath being tyed by so many subordinations to several degrees of Superiors newer and newer Reformations for ever do flow and multiply without end as we see at this day And so it is also that these Acts of Supremacy coming from the hands of the Temporal power whatever way they incline have much more strength and validity in case of opposition than those coming from the Spiritual this Sword not wounding to sense so deep as the other and therefore is such a Supremacy where Prince's judgments are liable to mistakes much the more dangerous § 215 All which ill-consequences the Protestant Princes of Germany who Several Protestants denying such a Supremacy du◠to Princes being in some respects subordinate to another could not so well settle this Supremacy on themselves in the dawning of the Reformation did well foresee and were as loth to acknowledge the Emperor Supreme as the Pope Nor would they ever allow of this Title assumed by Henry the Eighth out of a jealousy that Charles the Fifth should claim the same And for this reason it is thought that no Accord was made tho much attempted between them and this King See Lord Herbert's Hist p 378 and 448. The Protestants of Germany saith he would not allow the King's Supremacy lest they should infer an investing of the same authority in the Emperor whose absolute power they seemed to fear more than that of the Pope himself And this suspicion alienated secretly the mind of our King who saw that if he embraced their Reformation they would abridge his power i. e. regulate or alter the point of his Supremacy § 216 The same reluctance against such Regal Supremacy was in Calvin and other Reformers as I have shewed before See before §. 37. and hath remained still in the reformed Presbyterian Clergy of Scotland and in those Sects called Puritanical in England and elsewhere which is said to have rendred both Queen Elizabeth and King James much more averse from the Presbyterian Government and Discipline who discharging the authority of the Pope of Councils such as the Church hath had of Bishops yet have endeavoured to reserve the Supremacy as touching all Ecclesiastical Affairs to the Officers of their particular Churches as the power of calling and constituting their Assemblies at time and place as they think fit the making of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies the correcting and ordering all things pertaining to the Congregation tho without the Kings consent and against his will unless he be pleased to be included in the number of the Church Officers there to enjoy a single vote requiring the Civil Magistrate to be subject to this their power To which purpose are those Positions of theirs Seatch Discipline 2. l. 1. c. As the Ministers and others of the Ecclesiastical State are subject to the judgment and punishment of the Magistrate in external things if they offend so ought the Magistrates to be subject to the Kirk Spiritually and in Ecclesiastical Government And to submit themselves to the Discipline of the Kirk if they transgress in matter of Conscience and Religion All men as well Magistrates as Inferiors ought to be subject to the judgment of the National Assemblies of this Country in Ecclesiastical causes Scot. Disc 2. l. 12. c. without any re or appellation to any Judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm See Dr. Heylin's Reform Just p. 88 and Rogers on Art 37. p. 216. and 218. and the two Books of the Scottish Discipline To which may be added those passages of the English Presbyterian in their Confession of Faith An. Dom. 1647. cap. 30 and 31. which say That the Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church hath therein appointed a Government in the hand of Church-officers distinct from the Civil Magistrate And that if the Magistrates be open enemies to the Church the Ministers of Christ of themselves by vertue of their office may meet together in such Assemblies And there may Ministesrially determine Controversies of Faith set down rules for the better ordering of the publick worship of God and Government of his Church receive complaints and authoritatively determine the same Which decrees and determinations if consonant to the word are to be received and therefore may be divulged with reverence and submission for the power whereby they are made as this power being an Ordinance of God All this they affirm the Church-officers may do of themselves by vertue of their office if the Magistrate be an open enemy to the Church And all this they did King Charles's Supremacy giving no consent thereto but opposing it And then for the meaning of open enemy I have reason to suppose they will pronounce a Popish an Arrian any heretical Prince such as well tho perhaps not every way so much as an Heathen § 217 Lastly The same reluctance also was in those Bishops who first conceded such Supremacy to Henry the Eighth Who as at the fiest they swallowed the Oath of it not without some straining so afterward when by long experience they had seen such Church-laws issuing from it as they thought very grievous and dammageable to the Church and found uncontrollable by their power they very stoutly to the loss of their Bishopricks made resistance to the same Oath
will thus also go against them because as the major part of the Clergy of Christianity so of the Laity and Princes were they made the Judges in that Council are opposite to the Reformation 5. That they do set up the authority of Provincial or National Synods in some cases See 2. Part § 29.44 against General the ill consequences of which introducing such an Aristocratical or rather so many several Monarchical Governments into the Church as there are several Metropolitans or Primates see in 2. Part § 78. n. 2. and do hold this a sufficient foundation of Reformation tho indeed so much if the things said in this 5th Part stand good cannot be pleaded for it Now all these guards and fences of the Reformed seem to me to render a future Council were it never so universal and free of none effect as to ending Controversies unless it pass on their side and again seem to argue an Autocatacrisis in them as to the judgment of the Church Catholick and of Councils viz. that they apprehend they should be cast by those whom yet they shew a willingness to be tryed by Especially when as after now an 140 years divulging of their doctrines their reasons and their demonstrations they see that tho at the first perhaps out of novelty their opinions made a wonderful progress and growth yet for above half of this age the Reformation hath stood at a stay and of late hath rather lost ground and is grown decrepit and much abated of its former bulk and stature § 221 To conclude In such a rejection of or aversion from the Church's judgment let none think himself secure in relying on the testimony of his conscience or judgment 1. either that he doth nothing against it which security many of all sects not only living but dying have for sickness ordinarily hath no new revelations of truth in it and what sect is there that hath not had Martyrs The Roman party many at Tiburn and the Protestant in Smithfield and even Atheism it self hath had those that have dyed for it Vaninus and others 2. Or that he hath taken sufficient care to inform it which thing also all sects shew themselves confident-in I say let none think himself secure in any of these things so long as his conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing namely his disobedience and inconformity to the Church Catholick I mean to the major part of the Guides thereof as formerly explained in Chur. Gov. 2. Part § 8. c. 24. c. a disobedience which Luther and the first Reformers could not but acknowledge Epistle to Melancthon 145. Nos discessionem a toto mundo saith facere coacti sumus And let him know that his condition is very dangerous when he maketh the Church-guides of his own time or the major part thereof uncommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion when for the maintaining of his opinions he begins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of the Church between the doctrines of the Catholick Church of the former ages and of the Catholick Church of the present between the Church's orthodoxness in necessaries and in non-necessaries to salvation when he begins to maintain the authority of an inferior ecclesiastical judge against a superior or of a minor part of the Church-guides against a major Which whosoever doth tho perchance he wanteth not many companions had need to be sure and sure again that he is in the right because this thing in the day of judgment will hinder all those that err from pleading invincible or inculpable ignorance when as they do grant both that God hath given them beside the Scriptures guides of their Faith and that they have in their judgment departed from these guides i. e from a major part of them which in a Court consisting of many is the legal Judge I say In the Name of God let every Religious Soul take heed of such Autocatacrises FINIS SIR WEll knowing your Fidelity and Loyalty to your Prince lest you should be offended with some expressions in this discourse concerning the limited authority of the supreme Civil Power in Spiritual matters I must pre-acquaint you with these three things 1. That there is nothing touched herein concerning the Temporal Prince his supreme power in all Civil or Temporal matters whatever nor in such as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only concerning the Supremacy in things that are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Namely such as Christianity hath de novo by our Saviours authority and commission introduced into the world and into the several Civil States thereof which do voluntarily subject themselves unto its laws and such as the Church Governors our Saviours Substitutes from the beginning have lawfully exercised in several Princes dominions when the same Princes have prohibited them the exercise of such things under pain of death Which things you may see numbred by Bishop Carleton below § 3. or by Dr. Taylor or by the Kings Paper Ibid. 2. That there is nothing asserted here concerning the lawfulness of any Spiritual power 's using or authorizing any others to use the material or temporal Sword in any case or necessity whatsoever tho it were in ordine ad Spiritualia 3. That I know not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denyed 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 and do leave to the management of the Clergy and yet their Crowns notwithstanding the relinquishing this power in Spirituals subsist prosper flourish And not any but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth Now 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 than do to any other Prince of a former Time or a diverse Nation Because what are thus the Church's Rights no Civil or Municipal law of any Kingdome in any time can lawfully prejudice diminish or alter Nor may any such Secular laws made be urged as authentical for shewing what are or are not the Church's Rights And therefore in respect of the foresaid Clergy-Rights the Kings of England can have no more priviledge or exemption than the King of France nor in England Henry the Eighth than Henry the Seventh Nor can any person in maintaining the Church's foresaid Rights be any more now a disloyal Subject to his Prince in these than he would have been in those days CORRIGENDA PAg. 2. line 38. of Christians p. 3 l. 16. to Heathen p. 6. l. 15. l. 19. c. p. 8. l. 1. pag. 236. p. 35. l. 37. pag. 53. p. 38. l. 10. § 24. p. 41. ult from denying p. 53. l. 16. pag. 34. p. 56. l. 17. Mariae p. 106. l. 7. § 340. p. 180. l.
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
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
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
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 § 34. p. 39. 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 Religtion 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 §. 43. p. 56. 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 §. 166. p. 187. 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 §. 185. p. 214. Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended will best be learnt from our Articles * Art 37. 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 her self 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 * Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684. 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 his 1st pag. 36. Thesis is King Henry the Eth'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 pag. 99. 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 * Heylins Ref. Justified part 1. §. 6. p 240. 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 * Burn Ref. l. 3. p. 182. resolutely abjur'd it What of those Learned in the * Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae zelo religione conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimos Interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi à Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259. Vniversity who after a solemn debate and serious disquisition of the cause so peremptorily defin'd against it What of the * Ref. l. 2. p. 142. Whole Body of the Clergy whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies Pag. 2. and to judge what is Gods Word and divine Truth § 2 what are Errors who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it What of the leading part of those Prelates Ibid. p. 137. Gardiner Bonner and Tonstal who Wrote Preach'd and Fram'd Oaths against it What of the Ibid. p. 144. 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 Professors 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
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 which God gave them to assemble the Congregation Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh or Constantine then Nero See also a Field of the Church l. 5. c. 52. Dr Field His Third Thesis is That the Secular Prince cannot b Soave Hist of Conc. Tr. Pag. 77. 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 Vse of it This Author holds the Negative and tells 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 1st 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 pag. 37. Now was not this Matter of Faith already determine 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 pag. 70. 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 * Burn. His Ref. part 2. l. 1. p. 127. 165. 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 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 Ibid. p. 127. 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 erected so they
we ought to oppose the benefit she receives from the Protection of a good one Nor is it more true that Constantius an Arrian by his unjustly displacing the Orthodox Bishops procu'd Arrianism to be voted in several Eastern Synods then that the succeeding Emperors by justly displacing the Arrian Bishops procur'd the Nicene Faith to be receiv'd in succeeding Synods But for these mischiefe which a National Synod is liable to our Author has found out as he thinks a Remedy in his Fourth Thesis That a Provincial or National Synod may not lawfully make any definitions in matters of Faith or in reforming some Error or Heresy or other abuse in God's Service contrary to the Decrees of former Superior Synods or contrary to the judgment of the Church Vniversal of the present Age shew'd in her publick Liturgies But there is a Thesis in our Bibles which seems to me the very contradictory of this For saith the Prophet expresly * Hos 4.15 Though Israel transgress yet let not Judah Sin Tho' ten tribes continue corrupted in their Faith yet let the remaining Tribe take care to reform her self For that Judah had sinned and consequently was here commanded to reform is plain from the words of Scripture where it is said that * 2 King c. 17. v. 9. Judah kept not the Commandments of the Lord her God but walk'd in the Statutes of Israel which they made But this argument of National Councils reforming without the leave of General has been manag'd with so great Learning and Demonstration by Arch-Bishop Laud in his Discourse with Fisher and his Lordship's Arguments so clearly vindicated by the Reverend D. Stillingfleet that as it is great Praesumption in this Author to offer any thing in a cause which has had the Honour to have suffer'd under those Pens so neither would it be modest in me to meddle any farther in a Controversie by them exhausted I shall therefore proceed to his Fifth Thesis That could a National Synod make such Definitions yet that a Synod wanting part of the National Clergy unjustly depos'd or restrained and consisting partly of persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first threatned with Fines Imprisonment and deprivation in case of their Non-conformity to the Princes Injunctions in matters purely Spiritual is not to be accounted a lawful National Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such Regal Injunctions Now how this is pertinent to our case I can by no means conjecture For it has been shew'd that neither were the Anti-reforming Bps. unjustly depos'd nor the Reformers unjustly introduc'd But what he means by the Clergy's being threatned with fines imprisonment and Deprivation in case of their Non-conformity to the Prince's Injunctions may be learnt from another passage in his Discourse where he tells us that the Clergy being condemn'd in the Kings Bench in a Praemunire for acknowledging the Cardinal's power Legantine and so become liable at the King's pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and Confiscation of their Estates pag 26. did to release themselves of this Praemunire give the King the title of Ecclesiae Cleri Anglicani Protector Supremum caput Which Act saith he so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledges It is easie to believe that Nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it But here we have great reason to complain of the unpardonable praevarication of this Author in so foully misrepraesenting Dr. Hammond Which that it may be the more perspicuous and that the Reader may make from this Instance a true judgment of this Writer's sincerity it will be necessary to transcribe the whole passage as it lies in the Doctor Sch. c 7. §. 5. Though the first act of the Clergy in this was so introduc'd that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurr'd by them could probably have inclin'd them to it and therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an Act of their first will and choice but that which the Necessity of affairs recommended to them Yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a Synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both Houses of Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess their fear being the Occasion of their Debates but the Reasons and Arguments observ'd in debate the causes as in all Charity we are to judge of their Decision Thus the Doctor Now this Prevarication is the more culpable because it is not an Original but copied from Mr. Sergeant whom this Writer cannot but be praesumed to have known to have falsified it For Bishop Bramhal in whose writings we find him very conversant had detected this mis-quotation in Mr. Sergeant and severely Reprimands him for it His words are so applicable to our Author that I cannot excuse my self the Omission of them Bp. Br. Wor. Tom. 1. p. 360. He citeth half a passage out of Dr. Hammond but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong Dr. Hammond speaketh only of the first Preparatory Act which occasion'd them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodical way he applieth it to the subsequent Act of renunciation after debate Dr. Hammond speaketh of no fear but the fear of the Law the Law of Praemunire an Ancient Law made many ages before Henry the 8th was born the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Usurpations of the Court of Rome but Mr. Sergeant mis-applieth it wholly to the fear of the King 's violent cruelty Lastly he smothers Dr. Hammond's sense express'd clearly by himself that there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did profess the fear being the Occasion of their debates but the reasons or Arguments offer'd in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their Decision He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously This Author must be thought to have read these passages and yet ventured the scandal of promoting this Forgery tho' without the Honor of being the first Inventor of it Such practises as these require little Controversiall skill but much fore-head and we have seen a Machine lately publickly expos'd for this laudable Quality of imbibing whatever is blown into it's Mouth and then ecchoing it forth again without blushing Whether this be not our Author's Talent let the Reader judg as also what Opinion we ought to have of his Modesty who after all this has the confidence to desire us to read together with these his Observations on the Reformation Dr. Hammond of Sch. c. 7. the very Chapter whence this is cited least saith he I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable
of several times justified and condemn'd the same thing I am very well convinc'd tho' not from our Author's proof that the Pope stood not alone in his judgment For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion The Pope judg'd for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph when the Dispensation was procur'd from him but here in the 19th he judges against it But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles then his Passions or Interest And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when telling us in the same Page that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinc'd of the Unlawfulness of it but because at the same time he stood much in aw of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine He needed not therefore to have instanc'd in the different Opinions of diverse Men since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinc'd us that the several Interests of several times justifi'd and condemn'd the same thing Now to return to our Matter in hand So that it seems he has digress'd for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to shew that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses The aforesaid Summ of 100000 l spent upon the Vniversities abroad c. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie and I need say no worse of it § 20 The King he saith excepted at the Limitation of Quantum per legem Christi licet in the Title given him by the Clergy and so at last upon renew'd threats this Clause also was procur'd to be omitted See Antiquit. Britannic The Author knew or might have known that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken For Dr. Burnet a Hist V. 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observ'd that King Henry when the Province of York demurr'd upon granting the King the Title of Head as improper in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ Accordingly it is represented as pass'd with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif § 2. Historians He refers us again to Dr. Bailie But the Reader I presume has had enough of him already The excluding the Patriarch is he saith contrary to his 4th Thesis It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope They could find no grounds for the Papal Autority from Scripture Antiquity or Reason but they might perhaps have been convinc'd from our Author's Theses which are an Autority distinct to all those This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon it is because I would not gall him too much Cranmer is said to have divorc'd the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Autority out of his Dominions § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compar'd with p. 144. was pronounc'd in May 1533 and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following Cranmer in the Sentence is call'd Legate of the Apostolic See By this Instance it is plain how implicitely our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology as well as History Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat saith Sanders This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first propos'd c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declar'd it was contrary to the Law of God He induc'd d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it f Ibid. p. 38. He subscrib'd and perswaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it He earnestly prest Fisher to concurr and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops These are some of the favours which Warham shew'd to the Queen's Cause § 23 The Clergy having declar'd the King Supreme Head of the Church it seem'd reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head This is a wild and senseless Calumny the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Autority her Charter she derives immediately from Christ The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave but the execution of which they abridg themselves is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject and therefore necessarily requir'd the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power He cites from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner and allow'd by the Convocation to a Parliamentary Remonstrance But either my a Reform Just in the Historical Tracts Edit Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin or which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations this Author deceives me The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be review'd by 32 Commissioners § 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weigh'd by Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation and it is one of our Author 's pertinent remarks that they did not meddle with what was not reform'd The Reformation of the Canons was a design of which Nothing worse can be said than that it did not take effect If it trouble him that Canons contrary to the King's Prerogative Laws of the Land good of the Subject and Laws of God should be reform'd no Honest man can pity him If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers that has been spoke to by the b Animadv p. 36. Animadverter If by Canons Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation it is out of his wonted pride to outface the Statutes For the c Forasmuch as such Canons Constitutions and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm cannot now be view'd examin'd and determin'd by the King 's Highness and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 c. Act expresly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods and had no
by the a p. 40. Animadverter that no more power is there challeng'd to the Prince than was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and so much our Church-Governour if he will be constant to his own Principles cannot deny As to the Clause of the 37th Article § 75 that he tells us will be subscrib'd by all sides I hope therefore the Supremacy is there limited Else the Romanists will subscribe to an unlimited power of the Prince § 76 As to the Proviso that the adjudging of Heresie should be confin'd to the Canonical Scriptures four first General Councils and Assent of Convocation and that this should be no confinement of the Supremacy § 77 is to me a Paradox That the re-establishment of the Supremacy was not consented to by the Bishops who were in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign is true but whether those in the former Chapter have been prov'd a lawful Hierarchy must be left to the Reader This indeed was asserted strongly but proving is not this Author's talent A Reply to Chapter the 7th I Have hitherto not without great patience pursued this Author through all his windings and turnings and every where discover'd his constant fallacies and prevarications Being arriv'd to Q. Elizabeth's Reign in which the Reformation had it's last settlements We might justly have hop'd He would have been drawing towards a Conclusion But We have been wandring in a Labyrinth and after this tedious pursuit are brought to the same point again whence We first set out Four long Chapters have been spent to shew us what Supremacy King Hen. Ed. and Q. Eliz. assum'd and the same things are to be repeated again in above an hundred pages more § 78 to shew how they acted according to such Supremacy This I know is a frightful prospect to the Reader but that He may not be dejected I promise him to dispatch the succeeding Chapters with greater brevity and to give them an Answer more proportionable to their weight than their bulk § 79 We are told that King Henry by Virtue of his Supremacy committed the Laws Ecclesiastical to be reformed by 32 Commissioners But this was a Repetition when we met it last it was spoke to when it first offer'd it self and I should follow a bad pattern if his Example should invite me to repeat § 80 By Virtue of such Supremacy he set forth certain Injunctions concerning Matters of Faith These Injunctions were the genuine Acts of the Convocation The setting them forth therefore was not by virtue of any such i. e. any new Supremacy For it is confest that to enjoyn the observance of Synodical decrees by Temporal punishments was such a Supremacy § 16 as the Princes of this Land before Hen. 8th had and exercis'd These Articles set forth seem to him to have nothing in them favouring the Reformed Opinions and to discede in nothing from the Doctrine of former Councils Why then are they brought here as an Evidence that the Reformation was carried on by mere Civil Supremacy But however our Author and Sanders agree in their History they differ much in their judgment a Sand. p. 119 Sanders styles some of these Articles Heretical the Doctrines of Luther and Zwinglius and saith they are diametrically oposite to the Catholic Religion The body of them he compares to the Alcoran as made up of a Medley of Religions and after his usual manner of treating Princes calls King Henry upon this Occasion another Mahomet a Bur. V. 1. p. 218. The Reformers at that time thought a great Step made by these Articles towards a Reformation The Papists here were much mortified by them and the Papal party abroad made great Use of them to shew the necessity of adhering to the Pope since King Henry having broke off his Obedience to the Apostolic See did not as he had pretended maintain the Catholic Faith intire If therefore these Articles do in nothing discede from Popery it is because the New Popery of this Age has disceded much from the antiquated Popery of the former It is noted that the King by Virtue of his Supremacy commands these Injunctions to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judg'd by him agreeable to the Law of God Our Author had little matter for Censure when He urg'd this as an Accusation It is imputed that he paid more deference to Christ's Law then to the Act of a Convocation and chose rather to resolve his and his Subjects Obedience into the Autority of God then of Man Thus are We taught that we must put out our Eyes e're We can follow Our Spiritual Guide as We ought and in our Faith prescind from Christ's Autority if We will approve our selves good Catholics For if what is enjoyn'd by the Church seem agreeable to the Word of God and therefore is accepted such acceptance is accus'd of not being sufficiently resigning So that no one according to these Principles is a true Son of the Church but he who pays a blind Obedience to her Dictates either without any regard to God's Laws or in formal Opposition to them § 81 By Virtue of such Supremacy he publish'd a Book entitl'd A necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People The two a Bur. V. 1. p. 274. Arch-Bishops several Bishops and Doctors of the Church compil'd this book If the Doctrines in it were as Orthodox as they were thought necessary I see no harm in the Publication Whether they were or not concerns not us it being not pretended that these or the Six Articles which are here also urg'd were Acts of the Reformation § 82 Heresie became a thing of the Parliament's cognizance as well as the King 's Of their cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but also the adjudging of it What the nice difference is betwixt declaring and adjudging Heresie I am not so subtle a Nominalist as to determine Heresie was no farther of the Parliament's cognizance then to declare how it should be punish'd It was in this sense of the Parliament's cognizance before King Henry the 8th 's time when the Laws were made against Lollards and after King Edward's time when those Acts were by Q. Mary's Parliament reviv'd He has dwelt the longer on these Instances that We may see when a Prince together with his Particular Clergy §. 83 84.85 or rather whom out of them He shall choose claims a power of composing Models of Christian Faith and declaring all those his Subjects Heretics who do not believe and obey such his Determinations what danger what mutability occurrs in such a Nation as often as this Independent Head is not every way Orthodox It concerns not us what ill Consequences may attend the claim of such a power untill it be prov'd that we ascribe such an Autority of New-Modelling the Faith to our Princes The Apostolic Nicene and Athanasian Creeds we receive and embrace
a Burn. V. 2. p. 81. Burnet who met with no footsteeps of it neither in Records nor Letters nor in any Book written at that time The succeeding Paragraphs of this Chapter pretend to give Us the defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings § 110. to § 136 together with our Author 's Rational Replies But besides that from the fair dealing of this Author already detected we have no reason to expect him ingenuous in representing the Arguments of our Divines with their just weight it may be farther offer'd by way of Precaution that those excellent Divines which he refers to wanted one advantage which we of this Age have from a more complete and Authentic History of the Reformation and among other things not knowing of the b Bur. Hist V. 1. Pref. rasure of Records made in Q. Mary's Reign pleaded to those Negative Arguments which we have good reason to reject This premis'd I proceed to consider with all possible brevity his Alphabet of Arguments α Urges that these Injunctions were not set forth but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan and β of other Bishops § 111 112 The substance of his Reply to α and β is that these Injunctions had not the Autority of the Metropolitan as such i. e. as acting with the major part of the Synod Now α β may easily rejoyn that where the matter of the Injunctions is lawful much more where it is necessary as being commanded in Scripture there the coactive Autority of the Prince is sufficiently Obligatory and that since the Office of Pastors whether in or out of Synod is directive these Injunctions proceeding from the direction of both the Metropolitans for a Bur. V. 2. p. 25. Holgate also Arch Bishop of York was a Reformer and b Ibid. other Learned Bishops were not destitute of Ecclesiastical Autority γ Saith these Injunctions were not set forth as a body of Doctrine which was the Act of the Synod in the 5th of King Edward but were provisional only for the publick exercise of Religion and Worship and Gamma is in the right of it for any thing his Replyer faith to the contrary who doth not pretend that they were A new Objection indeed is started and pretended instances given that King Edward claim'd a power for rectifying the Doctrines of his Clergy § 113 But not to trouble the Reader with examining the Instances we say that such a power might have been justly exercis'd and that a Prince requiring his Clergy to receive and teach such Doctrines as were taught by our Saviour usurps no Autority not invested in him δ Saith The publick Exercise of Religion was necessary to be provided for at present § 114 It is answer'd that the Judgment of a National Synod was necessary for such Provision For the proof of that we are refer'd to c Ch. Gov. Part. 4th a Book which no Bookseller has yet had the courage to undertake and therefore for a Reply I remit him to the Answer to it which he will find at any Shop where Church-Government Part the 4th is to be sold ζ Saith The Injunctions extend only to some evident points the abolishing of Image Worship the restoring of the Liturgy in a known tongue and Communion in both kinds and the abolishing of Romish Masses and that in the three former the King restor'd only what was establish'd in the Ancient Church § 118 It is replied that nothing is said in ξ of taking away the Mass But if the Reader be pleas'd to consult ζ he will be satisfied of our Author's modesty If ζ did not charge the Mass with Novelty it was because the Respondent had the management of the Opposition As for the other three points § 117 he confesses that the Reformation in them restor'd the practice of the Primitive Church and so kind he is that he could have pardon'd us this had we not proceeded to pronounce the contrary Doctrines unlawful A very heynous aggravation this when he himself confesses that Errâ—urs in practice do always presuppose Errors in Doctrine § 1 From which Zeta doth humbly subsume that those Church Governors who would have been facile to licence a change of their practice ought not to have been difficile in allowing us a decession from their Doctrine § 115 The Controversie betwixt out Author and ε is so trifling that it is not worth troubling the Reader with it For this reason perhaps it was that Zeta took Epsilon's place η Urges that these Injunctions were generally receiv'd and put in practice by the Bishops and θ much-what the same that they were consented to by the major part of Bishops The Answer to this consists of some Pages but what is material in it will ly in a less room It is urg'd that some were averse to the Reformation that the Compliers were guilty of dissimulation of an outward compliance whilst contrarily affected that they remain'd of the old Religion in their heart wore vizours took up a disguise and were sway'd by the fear of a new Law-giving Civil power To this η and θ will not be so rude as to rejoyn that it may perhaps be this Editor's personal Interest to prove that these Bishops complied against their Consciences and that Hypocrisie was the general principle of that party but that it is little for the honour of the Communion which he would seem to be of to urge that the whole body of it's Pastors were guilty of the highest prevarication possible with God and Man But this doth doth not at all affect our Divines who only urge that those Bishops conform'd and might in charity have hop'd that they did it Honestly but are not concern'd that this Compliance was from base and ungenerous Motives What is said here of the Liturgy shall be consider'd in λ where it ought to have been said I cannot dwell upon the History of these Paragraphs but there are in it some bold strokes worthy of our Author He blushes not to cite Parson's Conversions § 121 a book made up of lying and Treason and which might have made the Mastery in Assurance betwixt it's Author and Sanders disputable had not Posterity seen a third Person who may seem to have put an end to the quarrel In a citation from Fuller § 124 tho' he refers us to the very Page he puts upon us four Popish Bishops more then Fuller reckons Aldrich Bishop of Carlile Goodrich Bishop of Ely Chambers Bishop of Peterborough and King Bishop of Oxford Now tho' by the absolute Autority of a Church-Governor he might have impos'd these four Bishops on us Yet it seems very hard that Fuller should be commanded to satisfie us of this point who not only mentions no such Bishops but in his Marginal notes tell 's us that he thinks Oxford and Ely were at that time void We are told that Cranmer in the beginning of King Edward's days call'd a Synod § 127 wherein he endeavour'd to
have effected a Reformation but could not for which we are bid to see Antiq. Britann p. 339. But he who would see any such thing there must borrow our Author's Spectacles χ Urges that it makes no real difference whether a Reformation begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Prince be by him established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince mov'd by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole Body of the Clergy be by them generally receiv'd and put in practice according to the command of Sovereign Autority The Answer is § 130 that the King did not propose a Reformation to the Clergy by them to be consulted of and upon their Assent or denial to be establish'd or laid aside which would have been lawful but by them to be obey'd as impos'd by the King which He thinks unwarrantable But to this it may be replied from what has before been urg'd that the matter of the Command being lawful not to say necessary the Autority of the Prince is Obligatory and that the conformity of the Bishops is an Evidence that the matter was by them judg'd lawful In λ it is urg'd that the first Form of Common-prayer and Administration of Sacraments in the 2d. Year and 2d. Parliament of King Edward's reign had the approbation and consent of the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation To this it is offer'd by way of Answer That no other Act of Reformation before the 5th of King Edward had the consent of Convocation § 126 But neither is this true nor doth it prove that therefore this Liturgy had not That it was confirm'd by Act of Parliament before it had this consent But granting this had it therefore not the consent of Convocation But how doth he prove that the Act of Parliament preceded the Decree of the Synod Because the Act of Parliament doth not mention the consent of Convocation Negative Arguments he knows do not conclude and it is positively said in the a For. p. 1303. Letter of the Council to Bishop Bonner that this Liturgy not only had the Assent but was set forth with the Assent of the Clergy in Convocation Our Author himself when he has forgot the debate here § 146 will tell us that the Liturgy was at the same time authoriz'd by Act of Parliament and consented to by Convocation But it is said the Second Liturgy was sent to the Clergy autoritate Regis Parliamenti Ergo the first Liturgy had not the consent of Convocation But a motive to this consent might be fear of punishment Yet the a Bur. V. 2. p. 101. Convocation which gave this consent acknowledg'd to King Edward the quietness they enjoy'd under him having no let nor impediment in the Service of God But the with-drawing of a few Clergy especially if prime leaders and introducing new Votes of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting in six new ones may render that which before was a major part now a lesser and consequently the Act of this major part invalid This putting of cases is very impertinent here for when the consent of Convocation was given to the Liturgy not one old Bishop was depriv'd For the Letter to Bonner before mention'd which mentions this Assent of Convocation to the Liturgy is directed to him then Bishop of London who yet was the first of the Bishops depriv'd This Liturgy he saith rather omitted then gainsaid the former Church-tenents and practice This is urg'd by way of Apology for the Convocation's consenting but whether the Liturgy omitted or gainsaid the Church-practise it was one main branch of the Reformation and it is not denied that it had the Vote of a Synod The errors reform'd were such as corrupted either the Worship or Doctrine that the Reformation of Worship had the Autority of a Synod is after much shuffling granted Whether the Articles which were the Reformation of Doctrine were not confirm'd by the same Autority is to be examin'd § 134 This μ with good reason affirms the Replier defers the dispute Whether the Articles were the Act of the Synod and upon Supposition that they were Answers that the Clergy were now much chang'd many old Bishops displac'd new ones introduc'd many absented from Synod others dissembled All this is said upon our Author 's bare credit which by this time may not be altogether unexceptionable Only five Bishops have been prov'd to be ejected two of these Heath and Day in the same Year wherein these Articles were past and their Deprivation plac'd in History after the passing of the Articles the Bishoprick of Durham was not yet dissolv'd only two New Voters therefore Ridley and Poinet introduced by the Ejection of the old Bonner and Gardiner and those old not prov'd to have been unlawfully ejected § 135 What is said in ν is not denied in the Answet to ν but something said which must wait for a Reply till Church-Government Part the 4th has overtook the 5th A Reply to Chapters the 9th and 10th § 136 OUr Author having describ'd the general way of King Edward's Reformation proceeds to particulars His description of the general has prov'd very Poetical the particulars are most of them serv'd up the second time and very little alter'd in the dressing § 136 By Virtue of such Supremacy he sent Articles to the Bishop of Winchester to subscribe But these Articles were sent once before in the 45th Paragraph and needed not have been sent again here since the Bishop a Fox p. 1350.1357 subscrib'd all but that which contain'd an acknowledgment of his fault at the first sending § 137 By Virtue of such Supremacy the six Articles were repeal'd without a Synod The repealing of an Act of Parliament is not I suppose the business of the Convocation King Henry's Parliament had affix'd severe Penalties on the Violators of the Six Articles these King Edward's Parliament took off Nothing therefore was repeal'd by the Civil power but it 's own Act. But neither is it true that none of these Articles were revok'd by Synod For the b Bur. V. 2. p. 50. Convocation that sat with this Parliament declar'd for Communion in both kinds and Marriage of Priests contrary to two of those Articles Had not the Registers of this and other Synods been c Ibid. lost I doubt not but we could have prov'd most Acts of the Reformation Synodical § 138 By Virtue of such Supremacy he justified the power us'd by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses That is He did not throw up his right to them This power was justified by Gardiner and Bonner and others whom our Author must own for Catholics This Power was justified by Q. Mary's Parliaments who would not part with their Lands as they did with their Heresy This power is still justifiable by the Romanists or else a late d Nath. Johnson Author deceivs
Us who has invited us to his House to a Volume of satisfactions that the Alienation of Church-Lands consists with the principles of that Church But 't is said King Edward went farther and declar'd Monastic Vows to be unlawful superstitious and unobliging The Reformers have always declar'd the same and must continue to do so till some reasons are brought to convince Us of the falshood of such a Declaration Those which are offer'd in the Discourse of Caelibacy are not demonstrative King Edward seiz'd upon Chauntries Free-Chappels c. his pretence being the Unlawfulness of offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist or giving alms for the defunct The unlawfulness of these is not pretended by the Reformation but prov'd The Chauntries were dissolv'd that the provisions for them might be converted to more pious Uses this was the design of the Act of Parliament for which only We can be thought oblig'd to answer how ever it might be defeated For the statute expressly provides that they be converted to good and Godly Uses as in erecting Grammar-Schools for the Education of Youth in Virtue and Godliness the farther augmenting of the Universities and better provision for the poor and needy § 139 In this he went beyond his Father that He began the taking of Bishop's Lands also This must be reckon'd an Act of the Reformation tho' he knows it is as pathetically lamented by our Writers as by his own He cites the complaints of three Protestant Bishops Cranmer Ridley and Godwin and a Protestant Dr. Heylin to prove this charge and yet at the same time has the boldness to charge it on the Reform'd Sure saith he foul things were done in this kind because I find even King Edward's favourite Bishops highly to dislike them If Cranmer and Ridley and other King Edward's favourite-Bishops disliked the spoyl of the Church-goods why is the Odium of this cast upon the Reformers Or why must very foul things be done before these declare their dislike when it will be found upon History that Cranmer and Ridley were more inveterate Enemies to robbing of the Church then Gardiner and Bonner He shuts up this Paragraph with a remark that Laymenders of Religion ordinarily terminate in these two things the advancing of their carnal Liberty and temporal Estates Sure this Author thinks that We know nothing beyond the Alps that we never heard of the rich Nephews of Popes which are flagrant evidences that Carnality and Avarice are not only Lay-vices But perhaps he may object that Popes are no menders of Religion § 140 By Virtue of such Supremacy he remov'd Images out of Churches and this when the Second Nicene Council had recommended the Use of them This Second Nicene Council is often appeal'd to by this Writer there is a Second Divine Commandment or at least there once was such a Commandment which will deserve his Consideration What Reverence we pay to this Council he may have learnt from a late a Reply to the 2 Disc Oxon. Reply where the Reader will find a just Character of this celebrated Assembly § 141 By Virtue of such Supremacy he impos'd a Book of Homilies i. e. He took care that the people should be instructed in things concerning their Salvation who before had been kept in ignorance § 142 He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion in both kinds to the people Which Command had been laid upon them by our Savior Contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance Which Injunction was made with a non-obstante to the Institution of Christ Without any preceding consultation of a National Synod But b Bur. V. 2. p. 50. others tell us it was agreed to by the Convocation which sat with that Parliament and particularly that in the lower House it did not meet with a Contradictory Vote § 143 The succeeding Paragraphs to the 164th treat at large of the Suppression of the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals the setting up of New Forms of Celebrating the Communion Ordination and Common-prayer the alterations of King Edward's first Common-Prayer-Book in his Second and the reduction of some things in the Scotch Liturgy to the first Form of King Edward and the complaints concerning this in Laudensium Autocatacrisis But the Reader will excuse me if I think a defence of our Liturgy at this time of day needless the unlawfulness of the Mass and Invocation of Saints and the non-Necessity of Sacerdotal Confession have been defended in Volumes besides that this which is here said is only a Second Edition of the two Discourses concerning the Adoration c. Where this change of the Services is animadverted on So that this has been already consider'd and any farther Reply is superseded by the two Learned Answers from London and Oxford to those Discourses § 146 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King conceiv'd he had a power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws This is the 4th time that this Reformation of the Laws has been insisted on it is here confest that this Rerformation of them was never ratified by King Parliament or Convocation i. e. that it was no Act of the Reformation Nothing is urg'd against it but that these Laws were establish'd by former Superior Councils and the Reader e're he can be satisfied of that must be at the charge of four more Volumes of Church-Government By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-Laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliament's Autority The Canon-Laws which he call's the Church-Laws for fasting were full of mockery and superstition Religion was plac'd in those Observances and yet Sensuality was consistent with them It was adviseable therefore to take off those Laws and yet to keep up such as might make Fasting and Abstinence agreeable to their true End Which is to be a means to Virtue and to subdue men's Bodies to their Soul and Spirit the End expressly provided for in the Statute There is no Obligation he saith for the Observation of either Fasting or Abstinence by any express Canon of this Church Reformed but only by Act of Parliament The days of Fasting are prescrib'd in the Liturgy which has the Autority of Convocation Fasting is enjoyn'd in the Homilies which have the same Autority It is there recommended from precepts of Scripture from the Example of Christ and from the Constitutions of the Primitive Councils It is defin'd to be a with-holding from all meat and drink and all manner of Natural food in contradiction to this Author who saith that not Fasting is enjoyn'd us but only Abstinence from Flesh He might with as good reason have urg'd that Praying to God and believing in Christ are not enjoyn'd by the Church as that Fasting is not For if by Canons he means those which are properly so call'd neither is there any Canon that I know of which enjoyns such Prayer or such Belief § 165 By Virtue of such Supremacy
in their Writings Prelates Bishop Andrews Bilson Carlton Morton Bramhal c. and Doctors Hammond Barrow c who have exhausted this Subject and made it impossible as to oppose it so to add any thing farther in Defence of it I shall choose therefore rather to refer the Reader to these great Men for the lawfulness of this Oath then to imitate this Author in transcribing § 187 Having attacqu'd this Oath in Opposition to repeated Acts of Parliament which guard it against such attempts with the severest Penalties he may more securely fall upon Dr. Fern who pleads that had none of these Bishops been remov'd by Q. Elizabeth Yet the 6 Bishops remaining of King Edward's being restor'd and the vacant Bishopricks supplyed the Popish Bishops would have been outvoted To prevent this Inference our Author tells us 1st That King Edward's Bishops being justly ejected by Q. Mary could not now lawfully act That their ejection was just he supposes we were convinc'd above The Reader therefore according to the Degrees of Conviction which he found there is to pass his judgment here 2dly That Q. Elizabeth could not justly supply the vacant Bishopricks with any Persons but such as the Major part of her present Bishops did first approve of But this if it prove any thing proves too much For if want of the approbation of a major part of Bishops makes the Election and Consecration of a Bishop void then neither was Q. Mary's Hierarchy lawful nor the Acts of her Synods valid if none can be a true Bishop who has not the approbation of a major part of the Bishops of the Province no true Bishop has sat in St. Peter's chair for some Centuries If this rule be admitted it will cut of the Episcopal power of the Bishops of Amasia and Adramyttium A Reply to Chapter the 12th THis Chapter concerns our Ordinations in which I miss the story of the Nags-head a Fable hist out of the world with so much scorn as 't is well and wisely omitted even by this Author But to make some amends for this Omission what is here offer'd is pickt up from the Confutations of our Writers There is not an Objection which has not been replied to by Mr. Mason Arch-Bishop Bramhal and more lately by Dr. Burnet As will more clearly appear if I leave this dispute to be manag'd betwixt the Pamphlet and them Pamphlet The new Ordination grew so far suspected as deficient to Q. Mary that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one That touching such Persons at were heretofore promoted to any Orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister A. Bp. Bramhal To this Objection that the Form of ordaining in King Edward's days was declar'd invalid in Q. Mary's days I answer that we have no reason to regard their Judgment They who made no scruple to take away their lives would make no scruple to take away their Holy Orders I answer also and this Answer alone is sufficient to determine this Controversie that King Edward's Form of Ordination was judg'd valid in Q. Mary's days by all Catholics and particularly by Cardinal Pool then Apostolical Legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the 4th and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England This appears clearly from the words of the Cardinal's Dispensation wherein he confirms all Persons which had been Ordain'd or benefic'd in the time of King Henry or Edward in their respective Orders and Benefices From which I argue that if King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations which was requir'd by the Institution of Christ then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirm their respective Orders or dispence with them to execute their Functions in the Church a Consecr of Protest Bps. Vindicated c. 4. p. 445. A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Edit Dub. 1676. Pamphl But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument you may observe that the Cardinal very cautiously here saith not dispensamus or recipimus in the present as he doth in every one of his other dispensings but dispensabimus in the future A. Bp. Br. It may perhaps be objected that the Dispensative word is recipiemus we will receive not we do receive I answer the case is all one If it were unlawful to receive them in the present it was as unlawful to receive them in the future a Ibid. Pamphl He saith not recipiemus simply but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt referring to the manner of reception which had been us'd formerly in Q. Mary's days which we find set down in the Queen's 13th Article viz. That such new Ordained repairing to the Bishop and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders as they being before not order'd in very deed A. Bp. Br. All that was done after was to take a particular Absolution or Confirmation from the Pope or his Legate which many of the principal Clergy did but not all No not all the Bishops not the Bishop of Landaf as Sanders witnesseth yet he enjoy'd his Bishoprick so did all the rest of the Clergy who never had any particular confirmation It is not material at all whether they were confirm'd by a general or by a special dispensation so they were confirm'd or dispens'd with at all to hold all their Benefices and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church which no man can deny b Ibid. Pamphl That the Roman Bishops held not the orders receiv'd by the new Form sufficiently valid is clear from the Bishop of Glocester his degrading Ridley only from his Presbytership not his Episcopacy for saith he We do not acknowledge You for a Bishop Mr. Mason Ridley was consecrated by the old form and therefore this Objection is impertinent c Mas Vindic. Eccl. Angl. l 2. c. 15. §. 10. p 209. Edit Lond. 1625. Pamp. The same You may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old form Bishop by the new and therefore degraded in Q. Mary's days only as a Priest Dr. Burnet They went upon this Maxim that Orders given in Schism were not valid so they did not esteem Ridley nor Hooper Bishops and therefore only degraded them from Priesthood tho' they had been ordain'd by their own forms saving only the Oath of Obedience to the Pope a Burn. Hist V. 2 p. 290. Pamph. Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new form and therefore in his condemnation not degraded at all but treated as a mere Laick A. Bp. Br. Popish Bishops are no competent witnesses to give evidence concerning the Orders of Protestants If one of us should urge a Determination in either of
our Universities against them in a point of Controversy agitated between us for an authentic proof how would He make himself merry with Us Yet we might do the one as well as he doth the other b Protest Ordin def against S.N. Tom. 4. Disc 7. p. 1006. Pamphl Bishop Bonner wrote a book wherein he contended that the new devis'd Ordination of Ministers was insufficient and void because no Autority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the body and blood of our Saviour Christ but both the Ordainer and Ordained despis'd and impugn'd not only the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass but also the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar A. Bp. Br. He saith We are not order'd to offer true Substantial Sacrifice Not expresly indeed No more were they themselves for 800 Years after Christ and God knows how much longer No more are the Greek Church or any other Christian Church except the Roman at this day Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly Ordain'd and admit them to exercise all the Offices of Priestly Function in Rome it self We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving a Commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross a Representative Sacrifice or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the Eyes of his Heavenly Father an Imperative Sacrifice or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of Real prayer and lastly an Applicative Sacrifice or an application of his merits unto our Souls Let him that dare go one step farther then We do and say that it is a Suppletory Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever a Bp. Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 3. c. 9. p. 255. Pamp. Those who are truely ordain'd yet if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church their true Orders as to the Exercise of them are unlawful and so unless a Church be first clear'd from Heresy and Schism these Orders are not rightly employed in it A. Bp. Br. First I deny that the Protestant Bishops did revolt from the Catholic Church Nay they are more Catholic than the Roman-Catholics themselves Secondly I deny that the Protestant Bishops are Heretics Thirdly I deny that they are guilty of Schism Fourthly I deny that the Autority of our Protestant Bishops was ever restrain'd by the Catholic Church Fifthly No sentence whatsoever of whomsoever or of what crime soever can obliterate the Episcopal Character which is indeleble nor disable a Bishop from Ordaining so far as to make the Act invalid b Ibid. Disc 7. p. 990. Pam. Tho' I do not here state the Question Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops yet their Ordination and Introduction if valid seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful A. Bp. Br. For the Canons we maintain that our form of Episcopal Ordination hath the same Essentials with the Roman but in other things of inferior allay it differeth from it The Papal Canons were never admitted for binding Laws in England farther then they were receiv'd by our selves and incorporated into our Laws but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholic Church And for our Statutes the Parliament hath answer'd that Objection sufficiently shewing clearly that the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops was legal and for the validity of it we crave no man's favour a Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc 5. cap. 8. p. 471. Pamph. They came many of them into the places of others unjustly expell'd A. Bp. Br. This is saying but we expect proving b Ibid. Pamph. Neither the major part nor any save one of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination Dr. Bur. If Ordinations or Consecrations upon the King's Mandate be invalid which the Paper drives at then all the Ordinations of the Christian-Church are also annul'd since for many Ages they were all made upon the Mandates of Emperors and Kings By which You may see the great weakness of this Argument c Dr. Burnet's Vindic. of our Ordinations p. 09. Pamph. No Metropolitan can be made without the consent of the Patriarch but Arch-Bishop Parker was ordain'd without and against the consent of the Patriarch A. Bp. Br. The British Islands neither were nor ought to be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as I have sufficiently demonstrated a Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 2. cap. 9. p. 128. Pamph. Neither did be receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior but merely that which the Queen a Lay-Person by her Delegates in this Employment did undertake to conferr upon him Dr. Bur. All Consecrations in this land are made by Bishops by the power that is inherent in them only the King gives orders for the Execution of that their power Therefore all that the Queen did in the case of Matthew Parker and the Kings do since was to command so many Bishops to exercise a power they had from Christ in such or such Instances b Vindic. of Ord. p. 89. Pamph. Which Delegates of hers were none of them at that time possest of any Diocess Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chichester and Hereford and Coverdale never after admitted or elected to any and Hoskins a Suffragan A. Bp. Br. The Office and Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthron'd may ordain as well as a Bishop inthron'd The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishopricks was always reputed as good in the Catholic Church if the Suffragan had Episcopal Ordination as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world c Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 452. Pamph. Nor had they had Dioceses could have had any larger Jurisdiction save within these at least being single Bishops could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction which yet they confer'd on Parker not on their own sure but on the Queen's Score Dr. Bur. Does he believe himself who says that none can Install a Bishop in a Jurisdiction above himself Pray then who invests the Popes with their Jurisdiction Do not the Cardinals do it and are not they as much the Pope's Suffragans as Hodgskins was Canterburie's so that if inferiors cannot invest one in a Superior Jurisdiction then the Popes can have none legally since they have their's from the Cardinals that are inferior in Jurisdiction There are two things to be consider'd in the Consecration of a Primate the one is giving him the Order of a Bishop the other is inverting him with the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan For the former all Bishop are equal in Order none has more or less then another so that the Consecrators of Matthew Parker being Bishops by their
as particularly that 1. Edw. 6.2 mentioned before § 40 Yet so it was that all the chief Acts that King Edward's Parliaments or Clergy had made concerning the Reformation were now revived Sec 1. Eliz. â— c. 2. and all that Queen Mary's or Henry the Eighth's save in the matter of Supremacy Parliaments or Clergy had done against it was repealed But this §. 179. n. 3. Bâ—t nâ—t by the Clergy tho done in spiritual matters was done by the sole authority of the Queen and her Parliament without obtaining any Synod to reverse the contrary decrees of the former Synods under those two Princes nay further whilst all the Bishops that fate then in Parliament openly opposed these Innovations Cambden Hist Eliz. p 9. By her own sole authority the Queen likewise published certain Injunctions to the Clergy And now the Regal Supremacy being thus restored only by the Civil power an Oath of Supremacy was also drawn up and imposed on all Ecclesiastical persons upon penalty of the Refuser's losing all their Ecclesiastical promotion benefice and office 1. Eliz. 1. c. And so this Oath being unanimously refused by all the Bishops that then sate save only the Bishop of Landaff I say all that then sate For by reason of a contagious sickness that then reigned within less than the space of a twelve-month saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Mary p. 81. almost one half of the English Bishops had made void their Sees three Bishopricks having been void from 1557 three Bishops dying some few weeks before the Queen three not long after one on the same day which with the death of so many of the Priests also in several places did much facilitate the way saith he to that Reformation that soon after followed they were all ejected out of their Bishopricks and with them of the chief of the Clergy fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Deans twelve Arch-Deacons six Abbots Camb. p. 17. fifty Prebendaries lost their Spiritual Preferments Meanwhile many others saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Qu. Eliz. p. 115. who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome dispensing with themselves in outward conformities upon a hope of such revolutions in Church-affairs as had hapned formerly § 180 Here that we may examine the lawfulness of the ejection of these Prelates for refusing such Oath The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy The unlawfulness there of upon which depends the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Acts of the Clergy succeeding them I will first set you down the form of the Oath which was this I do testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce all forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall assist and defend to my power all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm § 181 This Oath you see consists of two parts a Supremacy attributed and professed to the Prince Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend and a Supremacy denyed and renounced to any Forreign power And that I may speak more distinctly in this matter 1. As to the first of these thus much is freely conceded That the Civil Magistrate hath a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs and that such as none other hath namely this An external coactive power or jurisdiction committed to him by God to enjoyn to his Subjects the observance of the Laws of the Church and of the Laws of God as they are declared to him to be such by the Church and to restrain and punish the transgressors of them whether Clergy or Laity within his Dominions with the Civil Sword which God hath put only into his hands So that no Canons of the Church can be by the Ecclesiasticks or others executed or enforced on the Subject as Laws viz. with external Coaction pecuniary or corporal mulcts or punishments c. before the Secular Prince is pleased to admit such Canons and enroll them amongst his Laws or to concede such coactive power to his Clergy How far also the Kings Supremacy may extend over all Ecclesiastical persons concerning the Investiture and presentation of them so long as their canonical sufficiency is not denyed by the Clergy to such Temporal Church-Possessions as either Princes or others by their permission have conferred on the Church about which hath been in ancient times great Controversy between several Kings of England and the Pope I meddle not to determine Let this for the present be granted as much as any Prince hath claimed It is likewise conceded that in those words of the Oath only Supreme Governor in Spiritual things there is not any thing that expresly extends the Regal Supremacy any further which may be the only supreme power m Ecclesiasticals in one respect and not in another Nor no more is there in the thirty seventh Article of the Church of England which expounds the Kings Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All which he may do and yet be tyed in all things to obey the Church her Laws and to leave to her the sole judgment who are these evil-doers as to the breaking of Gods Laws or who stubborn and heretical persons And such Regal Supremacy will well consist with another either with a domestick Supremacy of his own Clergy in judging Controversies and promulgating Laws in meerly Spirituals or also with a forreign Supremacy and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch over all the Bishops of his Patriarchy in what Prince's Dominions soever or of a General Council over all Provincial or National Churches If therefore only such a Regal Supremacy as this were intended in the Oath it cannot be justly refused viz. If the Oath should run thus I do testify that the King is the Supreme c. as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal that is as this Supremacy is expounded in Article thirty seventh to rule with the Civil Sword all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers And if this word such be inserted in the words following And I do testify that no forreign Prince Prelate c. ought to have any such jurisdiction c. And Ergo I do utterly renounce all such forreign Jurisdiction c. You will say what is gained to the King by an Oath so limited This that no Forreign or Domestick
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
appoint a certain place and bounds for the exercise of his Jurisdiction no Bishop by the Church-Canon can be made without the consent of his Superior the Metropolitan nor Metropolitan without the consent of the Patriarch See Chur. Gov. 1. par 9. §. who is to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans under his Patriarch-ship either by imposition of hands himself or by appointing his Ordainers at which time his Bull for authorizing the Ordainers was used to be read and by Mission of the Pall See Conc. Nic. 4. c. Can. Apost 34. Council Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Act. 8. General Council 10. c. confessed by Protestants by Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. and 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitan's subject unto them might be ordained What they bring proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of Confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarch-ship By Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 9. c. p. 297. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans c. Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall c. And indeed what defence can the Church have from frequent Schisme if two or three or a few Bishops dissenting from the whole may not only make other persons of the like inclinations Bishops to govern the people with them but also may make new Metropolitans to preside over themselves But Arch-Bishop Parker was thus ordained by two Bishops of the same Province without and against the consent of the Patriarch and of the Arch-Bishops Vice-gerent side vacante the Bishop of London and of the other Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of York Neither did he receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior but meerly that which the Queen a Lay-person by these men her Delegates in this imployment did undertake according to the warrant of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. contrary to the First and Third Thesis above to confer upon him Which Delegates of her's were none of them at that time possessed of any Diocess Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chicester and Hereford and Coverdale never admitted or elected to any and Hoskins a Suffragan nor had they had Diocesses could have had any larger jurisdiction save only within these at least being single Bishops could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction which yet they conferred on Parker not on their own surely but on the Queens score And then might not she at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction which he held only on her gift See above the First and Third Thes 4. Of their four Bishops that undertook to ordain Parker three Barlow Coverdale and Scory were upon several accounts justly before deprived or their Bishopricks and as for the fourth Hoskins the Suffragan See before §. 58.189.190 these had their office formerly taken away and never after restored Neither their authority standing good See before §. 190. is one or two Bishops a competent number for Ordination 5. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops as it was made in Edward the Sixth's time so it was revoked by Synod in Queen Mary's days and by no Synod afterward restored before their Ordination Revoked also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days and not by any Act restored 1. Mar. 2. c. till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops viz. in 8. Eliz. 1. Upon Bonner's urging hereupon that the Queens were no legal Bishops § 194 And for such considerations as these it seems it was that the Queen in her Mandate to Coverdale Scory Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination c. for the Ordination of her new Arch-Bishop Parker c. was glad out of her Spiritual Supremacy and Universal jurisdiction which the Parliament had either given or recognized to belong to her and had enacted also That Her Majesty might assign name and authorize any person being natural born Subjects to her Highness to exercise all manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining See 1. Eliz. 1. to dispense and give them leave to dispense to themselves with all former Church-laws which should be transgrest in the electing consecrating and investing of this Bishop The words in her Letters Patents to them are these Mandantes quatenus vos eundem in Archiepiscopum pastorem ecclesiae praedictae confirmare consecrare c. velitis Supplentes nihilominus Supremâ authoritate nostrâ regiâ si quid in vobis aut vestrum aliquo conditione statu aut facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit eorum quae per leges ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt temporis ratione rerum necessitate id postulante Which Dispensation some would restrain only to these Ordainers their using of the new Ordinal before it was licensed again by a new Parliament after the repeal thereof by Parliament in Queen Mary's day Bish Bram. Consecrat of Protestant Bishop◠4. c. P. 94. But this was a scruple started afterward by Bishop Bonner and not now dreamt on Nor did the new Ordinal want sufficient Lay-licence having the Queens nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it for which see ibid. Bishop Bramh. p. 96 nor are those words in the Dispensation Si quid in vobis conditione statu c rerum necessitate id postulante applicable to it And these are the words in the Instrument of Arch-Bishop Parker's Confirmation Nos c praedictam electionem Matthaei Parker in Archiepiscopum c Supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis in hac parte commissâ confirmamus Supplentes ex supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis delegatâ quicquid in nobis aut aliquo nostrum c. And notwithstanding this regal Dispensation yet afterward Divers questions to give you it in the words of the Statute 8. Eliz. 1. c. by overmuch boldness of speech and talk amongst many common sort of people being unlearned growing upon the making and consecrating of Arch-Bishops and Bishops within this Realm whether the same were and be duly and orderly done according to the Law or not give me leave here to suppose that these scrupulous people meant according to the Ecclesiastical Law for what doth the observing of the Civil Law concern them in the ordaining of their Spiritual Governors which is much tending to the slander of all the State of the Clergy being one of the greatest States of this Realm It is answered to them in the same Statute thus That the Queens Majesty in her Letters Patents c had not only used such words as were accustomed to be used by King Henry and Edward but also had put in those Letters divers
other general words whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfections or disability that could be objected against the same So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness i. e. in Ecclesiasticals which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops See it before §. 70 it is evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against the said Consecrations c. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church in these Church matters And the Answer seems in effect this That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church § 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject this reformed Clergy being such persons as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince and therefore it is not strange if the Prince acted no more against but by them and began now a-new to use the Synod more than the Senate in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs CHAP. XIII The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy § 196 ONly before I conclude this Discourse let me shew you The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it after all the rest that as it hath been affirmed here that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines tho they contend that our Princes did not so Yet as if they doubted much whether they should be able to make this good do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves that a Prince when there is a necessity that requires it of which necessity the Prince is to judge or in cases extraordinary of which cases the Prince is to judge may lawfully reform Religion both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline contrary to the major part of the Clergy these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Superiors Nay also in the beginning of this work such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent because if they should once maintain That no Reformation is valid which is done against the major part of the National Clergy by the same reason they must assert that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy or of the Church or Council to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience § 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion is that of Dr. Field He The Opinion of Dr. Field after these specious Concessions We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on according to former resolutions Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion but in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils in matters not formerly determined to the judgment of his Clergy i. e. the major part thereof Yet after such specious Concessions I say he proceedeth as it were to protect the Reformation on this manner Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service there is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them But because they may fail they i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and not onely single persons but Synods of them else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods and a minor by the major part and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these to other Judges either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over Gods people and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily Thus Dr. Field § 198 Who not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi cui deplorata res est here seems to six the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice to others or at least cannot fail so soon as the whole body of the Clergy may what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they As one that hath a charge over Gods people and is to see that they worship God aright as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he or as if he could judge what was