Church-Government PART V. A RELATION OF THE English Reformation AND The lawfulness thereof examined by the THESES deliver'd in the Four former Parts Printed at OXFORD 1687. The CONTENTS CHAP. I. EIGHT Theses pre-posed whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation § 1. CHAP. II. Three Heads of this Discourse I. 1. Head How the English Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals § 17. And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it § 23. CHAP. III. II. 2. Head Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince § 26. n. 2. 1. In the times of Henry the Eighth CHAP. IV. 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth § 38. CHAP. V. The former Supremacy disclaimed by Queen Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Pope's Supremacy re-acknowledged § 48. And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church And the Church-doctrine under King Edward condemned § 51. That Queen Maries Clergy was a lawful Clergy That the Bishops in King Edward's days were not lawfully ejected § 54. Neither as to the Authority ejecting them Nor as to the Cause That the Bishops deprived in Queen Mary's days were lawfully ejected Both as to the Cause And as to the Judge § 64. Where Concerning the burning of those who in Queen Mary's days were by the Church condemned of Heresy § 65. And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places CHAP. VI. 3. In the times of Queen Elizabeth That as ample a Supremacy was claimed and by Parliament conferred on her as on King Henry or Edward § 70. Where Concerning certain qualifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed § 72. And the Replyes to them But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy § 77. CHAP. VII III. 3. Head How according to such Supremacy assumed these three Princes acted in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 78. 1. The Actings of Henry the Eighth in Ecclesiastical Affairs In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastical Laws and compiling a new body of them In putting forth a model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Six Articles § 81. Where Concerning the complaints made by Protestants of his abuse of the Supremacy In the consecrating and confirming of Bishops and Metropolitans § 86. In the putting down of Monasteries c. § 87. The pretences thereof § 89. Reflections upon these pretences § 93. In the dispensing with the former Church Canons concerning Marriages Fasts Holy days c. § 99. In the publishing and afterward prohibiting of the Scriptures in a vulgar tongue § 101. CHAP. VIII 2. The Actings of King Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 104. 1. Set down first more generally In putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Homilies sending Commissions thro the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy c. In the prohibition of Preaching till he had setled Religion The Defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings in matters of Religion The Reply thereto § 111. Where Concerning the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations § 119. CHAP. IX 2. More particularly In sending certain Doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Winchester In repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Henry the Eighth's time § 137. In seizing on Religious Houses and some Bishops Lands and denying the lawfulness of Monastick Vows In defacing Images In enjoyning Administration of the Communion in both kinds § 142. In suppressing the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals § 143. In setting up new Forms Of celebrating the Communion § 144. Of Ordination § 145. Of Common-Prayer § 146. Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass § 147. Where 1. Concerning the alterations of the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward's in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist 148. 2. Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer-Book in relation to the same Sacrifice § 149. 3. Concerning the reduction of some things touching this matter in the new Common-Prayer-Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of King Edward § 150. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis § 151. And the celebration of the Eucharist prohibited when none other to communicate with the Priest § 152. And Invocation of Saints expunged out of the Litanies § 154. And the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession relaxed § 155. CHAP. X. In setting forth a second Form of common-Common-Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate § 157. In which second Book are rectified and removed many things which gave offence in the former § 158. Among the rest Prayer for the Dead and several expressions that seemed to inferr the Real or Corporal Presence in the Eucharist § 160. Where Concerning the reduction of some things touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to King Edward's first Form § 161. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis In the abrogation of several Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts Celibacy of the Clergy c Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion different from the former doctrines of the Church § 165. Where Whether these Articles were passed by any Synod CHAP. XI 3. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical matters § 170. All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and King Edward's days being reversed by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days Her calling of a Synod which declareth against the Reformation A Disputation between the Bishops and the Râ—â—â—â—med Divines § 177. The Regal Supremacy and all that King Edward had done in the Reformation now re-established by the Qu. and Parliament § 179. But not by the Clergy The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy § 180. The unlawfulness of this Ejection Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend § 181. How far not § 183. That Submission to the Regal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops § 184. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs how far it is to be acknowledged § 185. That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops § 186. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be lawfully ejected on any other ground as would render the Protestant Bishops a major part § 187. CHAP. XII Concerning the defects of the Queen's Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days § 190. n. 1. Concerning the defects of the new Bishops ordained in Qu. Elizabeth's days § 191. Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Canons § 193. Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination § 194. CHAP. XIII Digression concerning 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 the Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it 196. Opinion Of Dr. Field § 197. Of Mr. Mason § 199.
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-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-Mass-Books c that the Canons forbidding Priests Marriage c are justly taken away and abolish'd and the new Forms of common-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
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-Common-Prayer-Book but not for other parts of the Reformation which new Form of common-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
ex hac altaris participatione Sacro-sanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione c. repleamur seems to be thus changed because Christ's body and blood were held by some only to be present to and received by the worthy Communicant and not to the Symbols And altho we be unworthy c. to offer unto thee any Sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service and command these our Prayers and Supplications put instead of panis sanctus calix salutes by the ministery of thy Holy Angels to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle formerly Altare before the sight of thy Divine Majesty c. § 149 Thus were things mended in the first Form of King Edward 2 Concerning the further alterations in the second common-Common-Prayer Book in relation to the same Sacrifice Stat 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. But in the latter common-Common-Prayer Book which came out a new-reformed three years after there is no oblation at all made nor no petition put up be tween the Consecration and the receiving of the Holy Mysteries but the one immediately follows the other The Collect of humble access We do not presume to come c. and the Lord's Prayer with its Preface Divinâ institutione formati audemus dicere and the Memorial or Prayer of Oblation which are put according to the manner of the Mass after the consecration of the holy Mysteries and before the receiving of them in the first Form are all removed in the second and the first placed before the Elements begin to be consecrated and the other two placed after the holy Mysteries are removed from the Altar or Table and are distributed to the Communicants and in the Prayer of Oblation the first part thereof We do celebrate and make the Memorial c. is omitted The reason of which alteration seems to be That so the new Service might still appear more remote from making any oblation to God of the consecrated Mysteries remaining on the Table or from making any request to God in the vertue of the Body and Blood of our Saviour there present § 150 But 3. Coucernâ—â—g the reduction of sâ—ne things â—ouching this matter in the new Cömon Prayer Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of K. Edward again in the last English Liturgy prepared for Scotland the sober moderation of those who governed the Church at this time thought fit to reduce things as far as without offence they might to the first Form of King Edward restoring all these Prayers to their former place again and re-inserting the Memorial in the Front of the Prayer of Oblation Moreover in the Prayer for the State of the Catholick Church adding these words We commend especially unto thy merciful goodness the Congregation here assembled to celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious death and sacrifice of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ before which Prayer also they order an oblation to be of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table All which they seem to have done as regretting the mistaken zeal of their Fore-fathers mis-led by Calvin and other forreign Reformers but not finding as yet a season for a more compleat reduction of the Reformation to the former universal practice of the Church of God § 151 Much complained of in Laudensium autocatacrisis Of all which things thus complains the contrary Party who looked upon their alterations with a zealous eye in Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 109. As for that wicked Sacrifice of the Mass which the Canon puts at the back of the Consecration the English i. e. the later Reformation of Common-Prayer Book under King Edward banisheth it all utterly out of their Book But the faction to shew their zeal in their reforming the Errors of the English Church their Mother 1. puts down here in our Book the Book sent to Scotland at the back of the Consecration their Memento and Prayer of Oblation 2. That Prayer of Thansgiving beginning O Lord c. we thy humble servants entirely desire which the English sets after the Communion in a place where it cannot be possibly abused as it is in the Mass for a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood they transpose and set it just in the old place where it stood in the order of Sarum at the back of the Consecration and before the Communion 3. The clause of the Missal which for its savour of a Corporal presence the English put out of this Prayer may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Christ Jesus they have here restored 4. That we may plainly understand that this Prayer is so transplanted and supplied for this very end that it may serve as it did of old in the Missal for a Prayer of Oblation of that unbloody Sacrifice by the Priest for the sins of the world behold the first eight lines of it which of old it had in the Missal but which in the Reformation the second Reformation under Edward were scraped out are plainly restored wherein we profess to make and over again to make before God's Divine Majesty a Memorial as Christ hath commanded Which making not only the Papists but Heylin speaking from Canterbury expounds far otherwise than either Andrews Hooker Mountague or the grossest of the English Divines for a true proper corporal visible unbloody sacrificing of Christ for which sacrificing first the Apostles and then all Ministers are as truly Priests tho Evangelical and after the order of Melchisedech as ever the Sons of Aaron were under the Law and the Communion-Table as true and proper an Altar as ever was the Brasen Altar of Moses you may see Dr. Heylin 's words in Antid p. 6. § 2. 5. After the Consecration and Oblation they put to the Lord's Prayer with the Missals Preface Audemus dicere Where the Papists tell us that the Priest having offered up in an unbloody Sacrifice the body of Christ for the reconciling of us to the Father becomes bold to say with a loud voice Pater noster The English to banish such absurdities put away that naughty Preface and removed the Prayer it self from that place But our men to shew their Orthodoxy repone the Prayer in the own old place and set before it the old Preface 6. The first English Prayer We do not presume c. which stood before the Consecration where the passages of eating Christ's Body and drinking Christ's Blood could not possibly be detorted to a corporal presence yet now in our Book must change the place and be brought to its old Stance after the Consecration and Oblation immediately before the Communion as a Prayer of humble access Thus Autocatacrisis sounded the Trumpet not without a sad storm falling afterward upon the heads of the English Clergy § 152 Aad the Câ—lemation of the Eucharist prohibited whâ—n note other to communicate wiâ—h the Priest All use of the Eucharist as a
at Windsor much more temperate and less varying from the former Service than the present is as ordinarily things do not on a suddain move from one extreme to another In which Book also it is to be noted that many of the alterations which were made were only omissions As of the Sacrifice of the Mass of Invocation of Saints of Auricular Confession of Elevation of the Eucharist Adoration being not-prohabited c. without tying any to professing his faith to be contrary to such things as were omitted which I impute to the wariness and moderation of some of the Composers who retained a different perswasion from the rest See before § 127. And again that in it were many former usages of the Church still retained which gave great offence to the forreign Reformers and to other Precisians here who had been nursed abroad under their Discipline Amongst which usages retained may be numbred these At the Communion in the Prayer for the estate of the Church Catholick a solemn Commemoration of the Saints and other faithful departed Fol. 128. which was thought fit by the late Composers of the Scotch Liturgy to be restored again in part into the same Prayer where is made a distinct and different Commemoration of other faithful deceased and of the Saints deceased Prayer for the dead and that in the same manner as formerly See Burial of the dead Fol 28. as supposing some of them in a state purgative or betterable by such Prayers See before § 147. Exorcisme I command thee unclean Spirit that thou depart c. Fol. 2. and anction of Infants in Baptisme Fol. 4. Sanctifying or Benediction of the Water in the Font before it be used in Baptisme Fol. 8. resumed by the Scotch Liturgy Extrcam Vnction also still retained Consecrating only so much Bread and Wine as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion And mingling Water with the Wine Fol. 126. Reservation of the Sacrament after publick Communion to be carried home to the sick if there be any that day to be communicated which reservation were it made for some longer time I see not how this difference can alter the lawfulness thereof Visit Sick fol. 22. The quotidian Celebration of the Eucharist in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churrches as yet practiced tho not enjoined Fol. 21. See Ruhr Fol. 123. The Altars still left in the same Position and with the same furniture as formerly The Communion-bread made in the same Figure as formerly only to be somewhat thicker and without any print upon them The same Holy Vestments Albes Copes still retained The Oblation made after Consecration before receiving spoken of before And chiefly the retaining still in the Consecration and other passages of the Communion all those former expressions of the Mass which imply whether by Trans or Con-substantiation a corporal presence For such presence was not a thing declared against till the Fifth year of King Edw. in Art 28. and then declared against upon this Philosophical reason because ejusdem hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non potest But this part against real or corporal Presence with its reason was afterward thought fit to be cast out of this Article when they were reviewed by Queen Elizabeth 's Synod 1562. The Obligation of Henry the Eighth's Six Articles being voided all persons in this point were then left as it were to their own opinion amongst whom as some were Zuinglians so a major part seem to have been in the former days of King Edward either of the Roman or Lutheran perswasion Neither is there any mention concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist in the Articles proposed to Winchester or in any other of the Kings Injunctions and therefore Bonner and Gardiner when forced to preach in publick to the great offence of some of their Auditors made this the chief subject of their Sermons and many in the publick Disputations had in Oxford and Cambridge about this matter freely and ex animo maintained such corporal Presence See before § 107. And Cranmer himself also for a long time was a Lutheran in his opinion till at last he was otherwise perswaded by Ridley Fox p. 1115. and p. 1703. Neither was there such agreement between Ridley and Peter Martyr at first but that the one in the Oxford Disputations held a change after Consecration in the substance of the Bread and Wine which the other denyed in Cambridge Fox p. 1255. § 158 Thus stood things somewhat moderated in the first Form In which second Book are rectified and removed many thing which gave offence in the former against which therefore were made many complaints Calvin writ to the Protector soon after it was set forth where he incites him to a new Reformation thereof and after having found fault with Prayer for the Dead he goes on Sunt alia non perinde damnanda fortasse sed tamen ejusmodi ut excusari non possint Illa omnia abscindi semel praestiterit ut nihil in Ecclesiâ Dei usurpetur quod non ipsius verbo conforme sit ad Ecclesiae aedificationem pertineat ita verò tolerandi sunt infirmi ut ad meliora promoveantur After this about 1551. Epistle p. 135. he writ thus to Arch-Bishop Cranmer Sic correctae sunt externae superstitiones ut residui maneant innumeri surculi qui assiduè pullulent Imò ex corruptelis Papatus audio relictam esse congeriem quae non obscuret modò sed propemodum obruat purum genuinum Dei cultum Writ likewise to Bucer then a Teacher of the reformed Religion in Cambridge that he should solicite this matter telling him that he was censured for too much moderation and might thus free himself from such an aspersion Epistle p. 107. Dominum Protectorem ut volebas conatus sum hortari ut stagitabat praesens rerum status tuum quoque erit modis omnibus instare praesertim verbo ut ritus qui superstitionis aliquid redolent tollant ur e medio Hoc tibi nominatim commendo 〈◊〉 te invidiâ liberes quâ te falso gravar◠apud multos non ignoras nam modiis consiliis te vel authorem vel approbatorem semper inscribunt Scio hanc quorundam animis suspicionem altius infixam asse quam ut eam revellere facile sit eciamfi nihil omittas Bucer thus excited by Calvin and also requested by Cranmer having the Book translated in to Latine An. 1551. writes a censure thereof wherein he desireth the alteration or omission of many things even to the disallowing of the use of the Surplice and of such other vestments as are there appointed of saying of the second Service at the Altar of the Presbyter's taking the bread in his hand and the using of the sign of the Cross in the Consecration besides greater matters of praying for the dead c. Yet of several of those things which he would have to
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-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
pro suâ pietate efficere dignentur ut ea quae ad jurisdictionem nostram libertatem Ecclesiasticam pertinent sine quibus debitum nostri pastoralis officii curae animarum nobis commissae exercere non possumus nobis superiorum temporum injuriâ ablata restituantur ea nobis Ecclesiae perpetuò illaesa salva permaneant ut omnes leges quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem libertatem Ecclesiasticam tollunt seu quovis modo impediunt abrogentur ad honorem Dei c. Which Rights how welcome they were to them when now regained in Queen Mary's days we may guess from their former complaint in the beginning of King Edward's days where we see how much they grieved when they saw them lost Sanders 2. l. p. 244. adds also that at this time Singuli Episcopi uno tantum Landaffensi excepto peculiariter petierunt à sede Apostolicâ veniam prioris gravissimae culpae See before §. 47. confirmationem in suo cujusque Episcopatu Lastly in the same Statute it is concluded That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Ordinaries should be in the same State for process of Suits punishments of Errors and execution of Censures of the Church with knowledge of Causes belonging to the same and as large in these Points as the said Jurisdiction was in the Twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth § 51 After these Statutes see to the same purpose the Synod held presently after the Coronation of Queen Mary Aâ—d the Church Doctrine under King Edward condemned before the introduction of any new Bishops save only some of those that were ejected in King Edward's Reign In which Synod the Bishop of London presided the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury having been about a Month before by the Council committed to the Tower for Treason for which he was some Two Months after condemned but afterward pardoned by the Queen In this Synod Fox saith p. 1282. that the whole House of Convocation Fox p. 1698. except Six persons did immediately assent and subscribe to the natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar and Transubstantiation and to the renouncing of the Catechisme put forth in the latter time of King Edward in the name of the Clergy and of the new Book of common-Common-Prayer these things being proposed to them by the Prolocutor At which time saith he Mr. Philpot Arch-Deacon of Winchester was as it were astonied at the multitude of so many Learned Men as there were on purpose gathered together to maintain old Traditions rather than the Truth of Gods Holy Word After this Synod see in Fox p. 1294. §. 52. n 1. the Eighteen Articles sent by the Queen to the Bishops but these Articles such as only enjoyned them the observance of former Church Constitutions from which the late Innovations had disobediently deviated commanding them to see to the Observance in their Diocesses of the Church Canons used in the time of Henry the Eighth securing them herein from the incurring any danger from the Laws of the Realm see the 1. Act. The Second of which Articles requires them to omit in their Writs Regiâ authoritate fulcitus The Third not to require the Oath of the Queens Supremacy in their admission of any into Church Preferments The Fourth excludes Sacramentaries from all Ecclesiastical Functions the Synod held in October before having declared against them The Seventh excludes according to the former Church Canons all married Persons from Ecclesiastical Promotions The Ninth appointeth the Divorce of married Monks and other Religious Persons who had formerly taken the perpetual Vow of Continency and the rest are to renew some or other former order of the Church Lastly see the Retractation made by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days confessed by Mason de Minist §. 52. n. 2. 3. l. 4. c. Regnante Mariâ alia Episcopis mens alius animus fuit i e. concerning Supremacy To which all that he answers is this Eorum subsecuta inconstantia confessionis prioris soliditatem abolere non potuit Quamvis sententias revocarunt suis tamen ipsorum argumentis non satisfecerunt But however that he will not grant the Kings Supremacy I mean in such a sense as it was then maintained to have been confuted by the Bishops reasoning yet he grants it to have been revoked so much as in them lay by their Authority § 53 The only thing which can here be questioned is whether this Clergy in Queen Mary's days That Queen Mary's Clergy was a lawful Clergy who in their following Synods abrogated the Acts and Concessions of the Clergy's former Synods in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's days were a lawful Clergy Which if they be now note that they will also be so in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days when also they opposed her Reformation Now it is questioned whether they were a lawful Clergy α α because many of King Edward's Bishops were in the beginning of this Queenâ—s Reign ejected β β and some also burnt for Hereticks and others put into their places γ γ whilst some of them were living and so those Sees not vacant δ and δ that without the consent of the Metropolitan who for the three first Years of Queen Mary was Cranmer without which Metropolitan's consent the Ordination of any Bishop in his Province was unlawful See Can. Nicen. 4. Can. Apostol 35. Now these Bishops are numbred by Fox to have been then ejected Pag. 1289. Cranmer from Canterbury Holgate from York Ridley from London Poynet from Winchester Hooper from Worcester he might have said from Glocester too for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the Sixth's time held both these Sees together in Commendam and for Worcester See Godw. Annal. An. Dom. 1555. Latimer then living had been Bishop thereof in King Henry 's days out of which for Non-conformity to the Six Articles he was ejected or for fear resigned it and was imprisoned in the Tower till King Edward 's time yet for what reason I know not could never then be restored to his Bishoprick Barlow from Bathe Harley from Hereford Taylor from Lincoln but this was by death not by the Queen as appears in Fox p. 1282. Ferrars from St. Davids Coverdale from Excester Scory from Chichester Besides these I find two more mentioned by Mason de Minist p. 248. Bush from Bristol and Bird from Chester Of which Bishops Mr. Fox saith p. 1280 Five were put out that the former Possessors of those Bishopricks might be restored Bonner to London Gardiner to Winchester Day to Chichester Heath to Worcester but Heath was afterward translated to York in Holgates room and Pate to Worcester in Hoopers room Vesy to Excester Besides which Tonstal was restored to Durham a Bishoprick which after Tonstal's Imprisonment was first kept void in King Edward's days and at last by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue § 54 Now in Vindication of the
was no small occasion of sorrow unto them to understand by the complaints of many that the said Book so much travelled for remaineth in many places of the Realm either not known at all or not used or if used very seldome and that in such a light and irreverent sort that c. The fault whereof say they to the Bishop we must of reason impute to you and others of your vocation And thus Fox in the same Page What zealous care was in this young King concerning Reformation by these Injunctions it may tight well appear Whereby we have to note not so much the careful diligence of the King and his learned Council as the lingring slackness and drawing back on the other side of divers but especially of Bishops and old Popish Curates he meaneth the Clergy such as had not been changed by King Edward by whose cloaked contempt wilful winking and stubborn disobedience the Book of Common Prayer was long after the publishing thereof either not known at all or else very irreverently used throughout many places of the Realm And the same thing may be collected from the many Risings in several Counties that were in King Edward's days chiefly for matter of Religion First in Somerset-Shire and Lincoln-shire then in Essex Kent Suffolk Norfolk Cornwal and Devon-shire and afterward also in York shire Which Risings of the Laity in such numbers for their former way of Religion would not have been had not their Clergy justified it unto them § 123 To these give me leave to add yet further the testimony of Bishop Ridley one who knew well the pulse of those times in his Treatise lamenting the State of England apud Fox p. 1616. Even of the greatest Magistrates saith he some spurned privily and would not spare to speak evil of those Preachers who went about most wholsomely to cure their sore backs As for the common fort of other inferiour Magistrates as Judges c it may be truly said of them as of the most part of the Clergy Parsons Prebendaries Arch-Deacons Deans yea and I may say of Bishops also I fear me for the most part altho I doubt not but God had and hath ever whom he in every state knoweth to be his but for the most part I say they were never perswaded in their hearts but from the teeth forward and for the Kings sake in the truth of Gods word i. e. in the Protestant tenents and yet all these did dissemble he meaneth many for of all it is not true See before § 107. and bear a Copy of a countenance as if they had been sound within Hitherto Bishop Ridley Where note that some outward compliance at the first of those Bishops who made an open opposition afterward might be upon a fair pretence because the first Acts of the Reformation might be not so unsupportable as the later for the Reformation winded and insinuated it self into the common practice by certain gentle degrees the greatest blow to the former doctrine and discipline of the Church being given in the later times of this Kings Reign when it was now by some success grown more bold and confident But however it be such compliance used for a while but after ward renounced does avail nothing the Protestant cause since the later judgment in such matters is to be taken especially where it is no way corrupted by but proceedeth against secular advantages Again the perpetual outward compliance of some other Bishops contrarily affected since there preceded before it penalties and fears and the seeing of the prime Bishops to be imprisoned and ejected for standing our is far from an authentical consent and unjustly reckoned as such For tho none can know mens hearts but by their outward appearance yet where mens votes are asked after penalties imprisonments of others threats which are so strong motives of dissimulation now all that conform in these are to be presumed compilers and none free voters § 124 This testimony of Bishop Ridley's I will second with Mr. Fuller's Chur. Hist. 7. l. p. 414. We find saith he the Bishops of that time divided into three sorts zealous Protestants Cranmer Ridley Hooper Farrer c. but these named were made Bishops or consecrated as Ridley in King Edward 's time all save Cranmer ' Zealous Papists Bonner Gardiner Tonstal he might have named so many of the rest as were then ejected for their Religion Voicy Heath Day Papists in their hearts but outwardly conforming to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws as Heath then Bishop of Worcester yet Heath was ejected and many other Bishops amongst whom elsewhere he numbreth S. l. p. 11. Sampson Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield of whom Godwin in Catalogue of Bishops saith That he began to shew himself a Papist in the second year of King Edward and was put out of the Presidentship of Wales Capon Bishop of Salisbury Thirlby Bishop of Norwich Buckly Bishop of Bangor add Parfew Bishop of Asaph Kitchin Bishop of Landaff Aldrich Bishop of Carlile Goodrich Bishop of Ely Chambers Bishop of Peterborough King Bishop of Oxford who all returned to the profession of the old Religion in Queen Mary's days Some of these forenamed flinging up a good part of their lands to keep their ground and complying with the Kings commands so coldly and with such reluctancy as laid them open to the spoil tho not to the loss of their Bishopricks as Dr. Heylin relates it in Hist of Reform p. 100. And here it is worthy of enquiry saith Fuller why this later sort which so complyed under King Edward should be so stubborn and obstinate under Queen Elizabeth whereof I can give but this reason assigned that growing old and near their graves they grew more conscientious and faithful to their own tho erroneous Principles Thus he I add to the open maintaining of which Principles their long experience having seen the arbitrary and floating state of Religion under a secular Supremacy in their old age excited them § 125 Lastly for the inferior Clergy tho many of them doubtless were changed in King Edward's days yet so many of them then remained still of the old Religion either in heart or also in profession that a Synod being called within five or six days after Queen Mary's Coronation before any new moulding of this Ecclesiastical body all of them except six voted against King Edward's Reformation See before § 51. To which may be added the zeal and forwardness of the Clergy and People at the same time preventing the Queen's Edicts in erecting again the Altars and using the Mass and Latine Service c. of which see Heylin Hist Q. Mary p. 24. All which could not have happened so soon after King Edward's death if during his life they had all so really and unanimously received and observed it Which Reformation also the Lady Mary in her Letter to the Council who blamed her for inconformity to the Kings laws intimates that it was not done without partiality nor consented unto without
Sacrifice being thus dis-avowed by King Edward's Reformation and no benefit acknowledged of this high Service save to the Communicants in their receiving it and in the Priests distributing of it to the people in the next place the Priest was prohibited the celebration thereof whensoever there were no other Communicants besides himself Tho this communicating of the Priest alone is no designed but a casual thing as hath been said and can only be charged upon the peoples neglect and fault who having the same need thereof and benefit thereby as the Priest might being many at least by turns accompany him in the dayly breaking of that celestial Bread if it were so hainous a thing for him to feed thereon alone rather than that this the most honorable part of the divine Service should be discontinued in the Church See before §. 118 contrary to the former universal practice of Christianity and also the late judgment under Henry the Eighth of the English Clergy It was ordered therefore that all those called private Masses should be suppressed add that on the Litany-days Wednesdays and Frydays and all other solemn days of worship when there was none disposed to communicate with the Priest he after the Litany ended should put upon him a plain Albe or Surplice with a Cope and say all things at the Altar appointed to be said at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper See K. Edw. first Common-Prayer Book Rubifol 133. until after the Offertory and then letting alone the foresaid Celebration add one or two of the Collects which are annexed to the Communion and then turning him to the people shall let them depart with the accustomed Blessing § 153 And thus first began the Christian Sacrifice See the first Com. Prayer Book of Ed. 6. fol. 133. that never ceased formerly in the Church every day or at least on all solemn days to be offered by certain degrees to be omitted in this purified Church the practice thereof decreasing from once a day to once a week from once a week to once a month from this to once a year and of late in many Churches not to be had at all Tho they who in these days of King Edward made the first breach upon the Church's former practice as it were foreseeing this evil endeavoured in some part to remedy or prevent it by enjoyning That in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches where they suppose that there should be still dayly Communion See King Edward 's first Common-Prayer-Book Fol. 113 compared with Fol. 123. there should always in them some communicate with the Priest that ministreth And that in Parish-Churches whereas the Parishioners of every Parish were ordered in such a course as they were wont to find the holy Loaf formerly now to offer every Sunday at the time of the offertory the just valor and price of the holy Loaf with all such money and other things as were wont to be offered with the same out of which the Pastors were to provide sufficient Bread and Wine for the weekly Communion In these Parish-Churches I say it was enjoyned that some one at the least for one besides the Priest was as yet sufficient of that house in the Parish to which by course it appertained to offer for the charges of the Communion should on that Sunday receive the Holy Communion with the Priest Which saith the Book may be better done for that they know before when their course cometh and may therefore dispose themselves to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament And by this means the Minister having always some to communicate with him may accordingly solemnize so high and holy mysteries with all the suffrages and due order appointed for the same But in the second reformed Book these Orders are relaxed the weekly offering by turns for the charges of the Communion now remitted the Celebration of the Lord's Supper or Communion required in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches every Sunday and that in Parish-Churches it should be celebrated at least three times in a year and that it should be celebrated in no place at no time unless there be three to communicate besides him that officeates By which when none or only fewer than three offered to communicate with the Priest he was necessitated to omit this Service as well in Cathedral as Parish-Churches notwithstanding any Injunction of frequentation But the first Innovators might have prudently discerned that when as the Celebration of this Service thus would depend only on the peoples devotion either a reception of the mysteries by the Priest alone must some times be permitted or this Sacrifice many times omitted There are two Injunctions indeed wherein these Reformers seem to have endeavoured to some degree the preservation of the former Devotion of the Clergy in Prayer and Communion The one See the Rub. after the Communion this forementioned That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches where be many Priests and Deacons they-should all receive the Communion with the Minister every Sunday at the least except they i. e. some not all of them had a reasonable cause to the contrary See the Pâ—â—face to the Com. Prayer Book The other this for saying their office dayly as formerly That all Priests and Deacons shall be bound to say dayly the Morning and Evening Prayer yet how short this in respect of the office they quitted either openly in the Parish Church or Chappel if at home and not being otherwise reasonably letted or privately except they be let by Preaching studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause But here also the two exceptive Clauses annext Except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary in the former and Except they be let by Preaching studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause in the latter have rendered these Injunctions as to the general without vigour and effect or practice in this Church Which the Prudence of those who contrived the Scotch Liturgy well observing thought fit thus to qualify the latter Exception See the Preface to the Scotch Liturgy Of which Cause say they if it be frequently pretended they are to make the Bishop of the Diocess or the Arch-Bishop of the Province the Judge and Allower § 154 Aad Invocation of Saiats expunged out of the Litanies Besides the Sacrifice of the Mass thus removed out of the second new Form of the Communion the Invocation and Suffrages of the Saints were also expunged out of the publick Litanies When-as even in the first English Litany put out under King Edward after O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity c. have mercy upon us it followed thus Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God our Saviour Jesus Christ Pray for us All holy Angels and Arch-Angels and all holy orders of blessed Spirits pray for us All holy Patriarchs and Prophets Apostlet Martyrs Confessors and Virgins and all the blessed company of Heaven Pray for us Likewise in the Parliament-Act 3 4. Edw. 6.10 c. it is commanded That in
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
's of England were always Supreme Nor is this Nomination at all injurious to the Divine Right of Bishops which is not deriv'd from the Persons Electing or Nominating but the Pastors Consecrating But we have him again crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He finds the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. By Virtue of their Acts to take Informations concerning the not using of the common-Common-Prayer c. Therein prescrib'd and to punish the same by Excommunication c. The first and last of these cs are very artificially placed for corrupting the Text. After Bishops should have follow'd Chancellors and Commissaries after Excommunication Sequestration and other Censures and Processes So that the Autority given by this Act doth not necessarily respect the Bishops and that Power of Excommunicating which they have jure divino but may relate to the power given to Chancellors and Commissaries and other Officers who plead no such divine right to their respective Functions or if the Bishops are included yet not so as that they derive the power of Excommunicating from this Act but of inflicting the other punish-ments which by this Act may be inflicted Or let us suppose the Bishops authoriz'd by this Act to Excommunicate and Excommunication taken in the strictest sense for internal Censures yet this will be no injury to their Jus divinum untill it be prov'd that because God has gave the Bishops a power to Excommunicate therefore the King may not command them to put it in Execution where there is a just Cause § 41 He finds 32 Persons commission'd to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical But this he found before in King Henry's Reign where it has already been consider'd and whither I refer the Reader as often as this Author shall be pleas'd to remind us of this Discovery § 42 He finds Six Prelates and Six others commissioned to make a new form of Consecration of Bishop's and Priests He might have found that this Act as well as the former was made at the a See the Petitions of the Clergy Burn. Vol. 2. p. 47. request of the Convocation Nothing is by him excepted against the Form it self and for the Autority the Synod petition'd such a Commission might be granted the b Six Prelates and six Divines Bur. V. 2. p. 141. Persons commission'd were all Clergy Men and c King Edwards Articles Art 35. Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 218. the Synod confirm'd it when done As for the Oath against the Pope inserted in the new Ordinal it was by birth a Roman-Catholic d Fox p. 1092. King Henry's Bishops took it without scruple That e Compare the Oath in Fox with the Oath of Supremacy as it now stands part of it which this Author thinks most offensive is since put out and he may be as severe as he pleaseth upon a Non-entity The Heretical Catechism in the 43d Paragraph shall be spoken to when it meets us agen in the 166th § 43 The 44th would justifie a Protestation of Bishop Bonner's which that Bishop himself a Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 112. recanted He is angry at Fox for calling that Protestation Popish But the Prelate himself in his recantation of it calls it unadvised of ill ex-example unreasonable and undutifull If Fox abuses the Bishop it is because Popish signifies something worse then all these § 45 We are next entertain'd with a confus'd Catalogue of Articles propos'd to Bishop Gardiner's Subscription together with our Author's Notes upon them One of the most pertinent Notes would have been that Bishop b Fox p. 1350. 1357. Gardiner subscrib'd most of these Articles but this was not for his Interest to observe His remark is that tho' in some of these Articles the Autority of Parliament is mention'd yet in none of these is any thing said of the Consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Parliamentary or Regal injunctions valid That the consent of the Clergy was urg'd to this Bishop I hope he does not deny I am sure c §. 110. it is urg'd by r. that in the charge given in against Gardiner it is said that the Injunctions were of all men for all sorts obediently receiv'd And that this charge was given in is not denied in the Reply to r. §. 119. elsewhere He confesses it The meaning must be that this consent was not urg'd under the modality of making the Regal Injunctions valid Nor do I see any Necessity it should for Gardiner had not yet so far refin'd his gross sense of the Supremacy but that he still own'd his Obligation to obey His Majestie 's Godly Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion Neither could the Imposers of these Injunctions according to their Principles lay so great a stress on the consent of the Clergy for if the matter of the Injunctions was unlawful no Church-Autority could make them lawful but if it was agreeable to the Law of God then the Civil Autority without the Synodal if that had been wanting was sufficient From this idle remark the Author has rais'd as idle a Consequence From this non-mentioning the consent of the Clergy he collects that when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mention'd as sometimes it is it is not to add any Autority to these Injunctions thereby Now to me it seemes a wild Inference that because the Synodal consent was once not urg'd as necessary therefore when-ever it was urg'd it was thought to add no Autority I may certainly obey my Prince in a thing lawful tho' my Pastor doth not at the same time exact this Obedience from me But when they both require the same Duty there ariseth a new tie of Obedience and I am now under a double Obligation But least we should wonder why the King and Parliament never pleaded any Necessity of the Synodal consent the Author conjectures the reasons to be 1st Because some of the Voters were displac'd and so their suffrage less Authentical But these places were supplied and then I would know why those who succeeded into their Pastoral charge did not also succeed into their Synodal Autority and if so why the Reformers should think the Act of a Synod less Authentical when Ridley sat there than when Bonner did His second reason is Because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force but so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were superior to the English Clergy And if the King urg'd his and his Subject's freedom from the Laws of the Church Vniversal so must He also from the Laws of his own Church National Church Superior Synods and the Church-Vniversal are words which sound big but when they come to be construed the Laws of the Church signifie Papal Decrees Superior Synods are put for any Council that is forreign and the Church-Vniversal dwindles into Roman-Catholic In this case I hope we may obey our Lawful Pastors tho' we reject an Usurper
extirpate Heretics upon pain of being themselves extirpated and if they will not be active must be passive It is farther observ'd that Protestant Princes as well as Catholic have thought fit to execute this Law upon Heretics He instances in Joan of Kent and George Paris burnt in Edward the Sixth's days But these suffer'd for Impieties directly against the Creed a B. V. 2. p. 111. Joan of Kent for denying that Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary b Ibid p. 112. George Paris for denying that he was God We have King Edward's c Ibid tears recorded which he shed upon signing the warrant for Joan of Kent's execution but I have not read of any tears shed upon that Occasion by Q. Mary Some other Anabaptists condemn'd and recanting were enjoyn'd to bear their Faggots But d Ibid. p. 111. the Opinions of these Anabaptists would have made an Anticreed to that of the Apostles and bearing the Faggot is ill oppos'd to the cruelty of that Reign when e Cranmer's case recanting did not exempt from burning In Henry the 8th 's time Cromwel pronounc'd Sentence on Lambert to be burnt I never read before that King Henry was a Protestant Prince Arch-Bishop Cranmer committed to the Counter Thomas Dob a Master of Arts who also died in prison The Consequence is that Protestant Princes burn Heretics In Q. Elizabeth's time Lewes and Hammond were burnt for Heretics Hammond's Impieties against God and his Christ were such as a Cambd. Hist of Eliz. p. 235. Edit Lond. 1675. Mr. Cambden will not mention but desires they may be buried in Oblivion Lewis was an Heretic of the same Magnitude Hacket was executed for Heresy and Blasphemy b Ful. Hist Book 9 â—h p. 205. Such blasphemies as might have been utter'd by a faln Angel Coppin and Thocker were hang'd for publishing Brown's book against the common-Common-prayer But c Stow's Chron. Q. Eliz. p. 696. that book full of Sedition against the State In King James's time Bartholomew Legate was burnt for an Heretic But d See his Opinions Full. l. 10. p. 62. he an Arrius Redivivus As for the Statute of King James An. 3. Jac. 4. c. it does not punish the reconcil'd as Heretics but as Traytors The Crime there reputed Treason is with-drawing the Natural Obedience from the Prince and none can suffer by that Act who takes the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Had the Writ de Haeretico comburendo lain as quiet as this Act We should not have reflected with so much horror on the Cruelty of the C. of Rome This instancing in a Statute made only in terrorem and never put in Execution tho' the demerits of some Apostates have been sufficiently provoking would tempt one to look back into the last Century and review the Treasons and Rebellions which extorted the making of that Statute but I forbear to pursue this Topick least too warm a zeal against the disloyalty of that party be it self interpreted dis-loyal § 66 Having shew'd us the Protestant's judgment concerning the justness of burning Hereticks he next gives us his own Sentiments The ignorant Laity and illiterate Clergy he in his great mercy rescues from the Faggot and condemns only to Poverty and Prisons This in Spain or Italy had been a great Act of grace but He might be sure few of our Laity or Clergy could plead the benefit of it The Fathers of the Church and Learned Sons of it are not mention'd in this Indulgence and there seems to be no reserve for them Indeed He had stretcht his kindness too far in favour of the Haereticis credentes and as if he repented confesses some of them to have been extremely arrogant and ignorant It provokes his Indignation that Mechanics should dispute with Bishops But the advantage these Mechanics had in the cause made amends for the imparity of the Advocates And after all Bonner and the Miller were not such unequal Disputants as He would perswade Us. They relied he saith on the uncertainty of their own Judgment But this Protestant certainty such as has been prov'd to rise as high as the Popish Infallibility He is not satisfied that the Relations of these disputes are pen'd with Integrity Indeed the reasonings of the Roman Prelates and Doctors are such as One would be apt to think them mis-related but when I read our Modern Controvertists I begin to have a great respect for their Fore-fathers The next Paragraphs tell us §. 67.68 that if the Ejection of these Bishops were lawful then the Introduction of others will be so too tho' 1. Whilst they living 2ly Without the Metropolitan's consent But I am so well satisfied he has not prov'd the lawfulness of the Ejection that I shall not dispute with him concerning the Consequences of it Our Author him-self who doth not use to be scrupulous seems here unsatisfied with his own performances For being conscious he has not prov'd Q. Mary's Clergy lawful § 69 He has another hold to which he makes his last retreat He is willing to justifie Q. Mary's re-establishment of the former Religion even without her own Clergy from the Autority of Superior Synods This he knows is part of our Plea but with this advantage on our side that Whereas he will have the Prince oblig'd to execute the Church's Canons without Inferior license We think him much more concern'd to provide for the Execution of Christ's Laws without such consent of the Clergy What has been said in this Chapter cannot want a Recapitulation The ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was to have been prov'd unlawful because for an unlawful Cause and by an unlawful Judge the ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's time lawful because for a lawful Cause and by a lawful Judge the Judges in both cases were the same viz. the Commissioners of each Prince the Causes in neither are rightly assign'd and of those which are assign'd Nothing is said to prove their respective lawfulness or unlawfulness This is the great Argument of the Chapter to repeat all the fals-hoods in it would be to transcribe it A Reply to his 6th Chapter THat the former Supremacy was reassum'd by Q. Elizabeth §. 70.71 is confest Thus much is said in the Title of this Chapter and no more in 3 pages of it Some bounds of this Supremacy are own'd to be assign'd by Protestant Writers § 72 Who therefore are wrong'd by this Author when they are represented as Advocates of an unlimited Supremacy The Qualifications by us urg'd are taken from the Queen's Title her Admonition the words of the 37th Article and the Proviso in the first Act of Q. Elizabeth § 73 Now as to his Rational Reply to the Title that Head and Governor in a due sense are Synonymous I allow but because the Style of Head gave Offence the changing of it into a word which was less obnoxious to cavil § 74 was material As to the Admonition it has been observ'd