belonged to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual censures As it standeth in Spiritual censures it is the right of the Church and was practiced by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always ways understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen And by this power saith he c. 4 p. 39. without coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the World reduced to the obedience of Christ by this power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for Three Hundred years together But if it be inquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive power give strength to the Canons of the Church But then what if the Emperors being Christian should take upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith or should use their coactive power against the Canons of the Church Take the answer of another reformed Writer Mr. Thorndike Right of Church 4. c. p. 234. The power of the Church is so absolute saith he and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the Profession of that Faith or the exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with or even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that power which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity tho contrary to the Sovereigns commmands Thus Mr. Thorndike in Right of the Church 4. chap. And like things he saith in his Epilog of the Church of Engl. See there 1. l. 9. c. the Contents whereof touching this Subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the Interest of Secular power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it That the Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity thro Christendome as the Sovereign is of civil Peace thro his Dominions And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible And see 1. l. 20. c. p. 158. Where he saith That He who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict Temporal Penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this Temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i. e those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the Sin of Sacriledge in seizing into its own hands the powers which by Gods Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own Service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence to the doing of it i. e. joyned to the Secular power doing such Act. Now amongst the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these l. 1. c. 16. p. 116. The power of making Laws within themselves of Electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398 and of excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p 385 the power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the communion of Christians in the Service of God and the power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion the power of holding Assemblies of which he speaketh thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 54. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation Founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service of God notwithstanding any Secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike Discourse of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. And thus Dr Fern of the power of Judicature belonging to the Clergy It is confessed saith he on both sides that the power of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend is of divine Institution and that this power must be exercised or administred in the Church by some either Bishops or Presbyters is also confessed to be of divine right Therefore surely no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his dominions the exercise of such Judicature nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's substitutes herein being denyed the assistance of the Civil power are to proceed without it To these I will add what Dr. Taylor hath delivered on the same Subject in Episcopacy asserted and this the rather because this Treatise was published by the Command of so understanding a Prince He after that p. 263. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdom is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any intrenchment on the Royalty hath these passages P. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all
may be dissolv'd by the Prudence of Men that as they were erected by leave and confirmation of Princes so they may be dissolv'd by the same that the Bishop of Romes Patriarchate doth not extend beyond the sub-urbicary Churches that we are without the reach of his Jurisdiction and therefore that the power claim'd over us is an Invasion that did not Popes think fit to dispence with themselves for Perjury having sworn to keep inviolably the Decrees of the Eight first General Councils they would not in plain opposition to the a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7. Here the Council decrees that Ancient Customs should prevail that the Priviledges of all Churches in their distinct Provinces should be kept inviolable We desire the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate over the Britannic Churches should be prov'd to be an Antient Custom and if not that the Priviledges of these Churches may be preserv'd Nicene and b The Fathers of the Ephesine Council having decree'd that the Cyprian Prelates should hold their rights untouchâ—d and unviolated according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the Ancient Customs Ordaining their own Bishop and that the Bishop of Antioch who then pretended Jurisdiction over them as the Bishop of Rome now doth overs us should be excluded add farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Eph. Can. 8. Let the same be observ'd in other Diocesses and all Provinces every where That no Bishop occupy and other Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors If any do occupy any Province or subject it by force let him restore it Now we plead the Cyprian Priviledges and desire we may be exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome till it is prov'd that He or His Predecessors did from the Beginning exercise any power in these Churches Ephesine Canons pretend to any Jurisdiction over us That they so invading ought to be judg'd by a free Oecumenical Synod if such an one could be had but that this Remedy being praecluded us Each National Church has liberty to free her self from such Usurpation that the Church of England pleads the benefit of this Right and her Sovereigns having power to transfer Bishopricks might remove the Patriarchate from Rome to Canterbury and justly exclude any forreign Prelate from Jurisdiction within their Territories But that the power claim'd by the Pope however mollified by the Novices of that Church is more then Patriarchal and that it is not our Rule which this Author so much dislikes but Pope Leo's the c Ep. 54. 1st that propria perdit qui indebita concupiscit This plea of a Western Patriarchate is fatally confounded by that one plain Period of Bishop d True Dif part 2. Bilson As for his Patriarchate by God's law he hath none in this Realm for Six Hundred years after Christ he had none for the last 6 Hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none Above or against the Princes Sword he can have none to the subversion of the Faith and Oppression of his Brethren he ought to have none He must seek farther for Subjection to his Tribunal this land oweth him none So much for the first branch of this Thesis the 2d is that as the Prince cannot eject or depose the Clergy so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceas'd without the concurrence of the Clergy If by the concurrence of the Clergy he means that the Person assign'd by the Prince to any sacred office cannot execute it till he be ordain'd by the Clergy No one will deny it Or if he think that the Ordainer ought to lay hands on none but whom he esteems fit for the discharge of so sacred an Office here also we agree with him But how doth it follow that because Ordination which is consecrating Men to the work of the Holy Ministry is the proper Office of the Clergy the Prince may not recommend to the Church a fit Person so to be consecrated or assign to the Person already consecrated the place where he shall perform that Holy Work As for the Canons by him alledg'd they being Humane Institutions are not of Aeternal Obligation but changeable according to the different State of the Church If the 31st Apostolick Canon which excommunicates all who gain Benefices by the Interest of Secular Princes and forbids the People to communicate with them still oblige then we are exempted from Communion with the Bishop of Rome How comes the latter part of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which concerns the Election of Bishops still to be valid and the former part which limits the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs so long since to be null Why must the C. of England accept the 2d Nicene Council in matters of Discipline which the * Petr. De Marc. l. 6. c. 25. §. 8. Gallican Church rejected in matters of Faith Were the Canon of the Laodicean Council here cited pertinent to the purpose as it is not it being directed only against popular Elections yet why must that be indispensable when another Canon which enumerates the Canonical books of Scripture has so little Autority It is plain the manners of Elections have varied much in the divers States of the Church The Apostles and Apostolical Persons nominated their Successors afterwards Bishops were chose by the Clergy and the people after by the Bishops of the Province the Metropolitan ratifying the choice In process of time Emperors when become Christian interpos'd and constituted and confirm'd even Popes themselves * Marca de Conc. Imp. Sac cap. 8. Nor is this Power of Princes repugnant to Holy Scripture in which we find that * 1 King c. 2. v. 35. King Solomon put Zadok the Priest in the Room of Abiathar That * 2 Chr. 19.11 Jehosaphat set Amariah the Chief-Priest over the People in all matters of the Lord That He * v. 8. set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chief Fathers of Israel for the Judgment of the Lord and for Controversies As for his alledg'd Inconvenience that if temporal Governors can place and displace the Clergy they will make the Churches Synods to state divine matters according to their own minds and so the Church will not be praeserv'd incorrupt in her Doctrine and Discipline They who maintain the just rights of the Prince are not obliged to defend the abuse of them there is perhaps no power ordain'd for our good which may not be perverted to mischief were this right of placing and displacing left to a Patriarch or a Synod yet either of these might so manage their trust that a corrupted majority of Clergy might state divine matters according to their own mind and so the Doctrines of Christ be chang'd for the Traditions of men But to these objected Injuries which the Church may suffer from a bad Prince
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
Edw. 6.2 where the Arch-Bishop is necessitated to consecrate such person as the King from whom all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is derived shall present or he refusing the King may appoint any other two Bishops for him to do it in his stead ergo so might Queen Mary according to these Statutes § 69 Thus much That Queen Mary's Clergy were a lawful Clergy which indeed except for a few and those not yet chosen or acting in the beginning of her Reign cannot be called in question and That their reversing the former Constitutions of Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth's Clergy as to the Authority that did it was a lawful Synodical Act. But in the next place suppose that the Queen had acted singly without or against her Clergy but with the Approbation of those Governors in the Church Catholick as are the lawful Superiors to this Clergy in re-establishing the former Profession of Religion used in Henry the Eighth's time before the Reformation yet so far as this Profession is evident to have been according to the Constitutions of the Church and of former Synods Superior to the Synods of this Nation which Constitutions do therefore stand still in their just force this Act of hers would still be justifiable because Sovereigns have such a Supremacy acknowledged by all due unto them as to use a Coactive Power in causing the Execution within their Dominions of such Church Canons as are granted to be in force without any inferiour further Licence or consent thereto Nor is this doing any more than if the King of England now re-established in his Throne should without or against the Vote of the present Ministery heâ—e restore the Bishops and the Ecclesiastical Laws again to their former office and vigour which these men never had any just or superior Authority to displace or abrogate CHAP. VI. The former Supremacy re-assumed by Qu. Elizabeth § 70 IN the last place we come to the times of Queen Elizabeth where we find by the Authority of the Queen and her Parliament 3. What Supremacy claimed c in the times of Q. Eliz. all the repeals of the Statutes of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth in order to the Regal Supremacy and Reformation which Repeals were made in Queen Mary's days now again repealed except in Two 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and 35. Hen. 8.3 c. which give to Henry the Eighth the Title of Head of the Church of England which was changed by the Queen into that of Governor as better befitting a Woman As for Bishop Bramha's Observation of Two other Statutes of Henry the Eighth unrestored by Queen Eliz. 28. Hen. 8.10 c. An Act saith he of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome out of this Realm and 35. Hen. 8.5 c. An Act made for Corroboration of the former if you please to view them and compare with them 1 Eliz. 1. c. you will find the cause to be not the Queens preserving and retaining here any Authority of the Pope which Henry renounced but the Six Articles in the one and the old Forms of Oaths in the other thought fit by her to be laid aside and all the Power and Priviledges whatsoever of Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals that were conceded to Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth That as ample a Supreacy was claimed by Parliament conferred oâ— her as on K. Hen. or Ed. as fully transferred to Queen Elizabeth For which see the Act 1. Eliz. 1. c. see the same 8. Eliz. 1. c. running thus That all Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been exercised for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Orders and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by Authority of this Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And that your Highness your Heirs c shall have full Power and Authority by vertue of this Act to name and authorize such persons as your Majesty shall think meet without any being obliged as Henry the Eighth was that half the number should be of the Clergy to exercise and execute under your Highness all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and to visit reform and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms c which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power may lawfully be reformed and that such persons shall have full power by vertue of this Act to execute all the Premises any matter or cause to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Provided always that no manner of Order Act or Determination for any matter of Religion or cause Ecclesiastical made by the Authority of this present Parliament shall be adjudged i. e by those persons at any time to be any Error Heresy Schism c any Decree Constitution or Law whatsoever the same be to the contrary notwithstanding this Proviso perhaps was put in because all the Bishops that were in the Parliament opposed this Statute See Cambden 1. Eliz. Provided again that such persons authorized to reform c shall not in any wise have Authority to determine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy I suppose by Heresy is meant here any Error contrary to what ought to be believed and practised in Divine matters but only Such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures or by the first Four General Councils or by any other General Councils wherein the same is declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures or Such as hereafter shall be judged and determined to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation here therefore nothing whether by the Clergy or other could be de novo declared or adjudged Heresy unless the High Court of Parliament also adjudged it to be so § 71 In the same Statute concerning the Extent of the Queen's Supremacy it is expresly ordained That the Branches Sentences and words of the said several Acts i. c. made in Henry the Eighth's time touching Supremacy and every one of them shall be deemed and taken to extend to your Highness as fully and largely as ever the same Acts did extend to the said late King Henry the Eighth your Highnesses Father The same thing also appears in the Queen's Admonition annexed to her Injunctions to prevent any sinister Interpretations of the Oath of Supremacy then imposed which saith That the Queen's Majesty informed that some of her Subjects found some scruple in the Form of this Oath c would that all her loving Subjects should understand that nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other Duty or Allegiance required by that Oath than was acknowledged to be due to King Henry the Eighth her Majesty's Father or King Edward the Sixth her Majesty's Brother It proceeds shewing
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
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
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
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
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
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