promise of the guiding of his Spirit into all truth But that any such Council hath at any time allowed the Mass c I affirm saith he to be impossible for Superstition i e. the Masy and the sincere Religion of Christ can never agree together For Determination of all Controversies in Christ's Religion Christ hath left unto the Church not only Moses and the Prophets to ask counsel at but also the Gospels Christ would have the Church his Spouse in all doubts to ask counsel at the word of his Father written Neither do we read that Christ in any place hath laid so great a Burthen upon the Members of his Spouse that he hath commanded them to go to the Universal Church It is true that Christ gave unto his Church some Apostles some Prophets c. But that all men should meet together out of all parts of the world to define of the Articles of our Faith I neither find it commanded of Christ nor written in the Word of God To which Bishop Latimer nexeth these words In things pertaining to God and Faith we must stand only to the Scriptures which are able to make us all perfect and instructed to Salvation if they be well understood And they offer themselves to be well understood only to those who have good wills and give themselves to study and Prayer neither are there any men less apt to understand them than the prudent and wise men of the world Thus Latimer in application of his Discourse to General Councils See likewise Bishop Ridley's Disputation at Oxford where being pressed with the Authority of the great Lateran Council Fox â— 1321. after having replyed that there were Abbots Priors and Friers in it to the Number of 800 he saith that he denyeth the Authority of this Council not so much for that cause as for this especially because the Doctrine of that Council agreed not with the word of God i e. as he understood this word Thus he who was counted the most Learned of those Bishops concerning the Authority of Councils See like matter in the Discourse between Lord Rich and Mr. Philpot Fox p. 1641. § 63 To proceed These Canons and Definitions I say not of Popes and Pontificians as they were ordinarily then Nick-named but of supposed former lawful Superior Councils were then in just force in Queen Mary's days notwithstanding any abrogation of them made by a National i e. an Inferior Synod See Thesis the Fourth and the Eighth as also was frequently urged against those questioned Bishops See the Examination of Arch Bishop Cranmer Fox p. 1702. where Dr. Story the Queens Commissioner thus objecteth but receives no answer there to it The Canons which be received of all Christendome compel you to answer For altho this Realm of late time thro such Schismaticks as you have exiled and banished the Canons yet that cannot make for you for you know that par in parem nec pars in totum aliquid statuere potest Wherefore this Isle being indeed but a Member of tire whole could not determine against the whole Thus Dr. Story Yet neither in Queen Mary's time could the Authority of a National Synod or an Act of Parliament be pleaded for such an abrogation of the old Canons or Liturgies or Supremacies and the establishment of new because both the Synod and Parliament of this Nation in the beginning of her Reign had pulled down again what those under King Edward and Henry had builded so that those Bishops could not hereupon ground their non-conformity which Argument Dr. Story there also prosecuteth against the Arch-Bishop § 64 Such as these then being the Causes of the Ejection of those Bishops I think it is evidenced And 2â—◠〈◊〉 to the Jâ—â—â— that they were Regularly and Canonically ejected as to the Cause And 2. Next so were they as to the Judge They being condemned as guilty of Heresy 2. or other Irregularities which are mulcted with Deposition and so ejected or also degraded and excommunicated with the greater Excommunication further than which the Ecclesiastical Power did not proceed not by any Secular Court or by the Queen's Commissioners but by those whom the Church hath appointed in the Intervals of Councils the ordinary Judges of Heresy or other Breaches of her Canons Amongst whom the highest Judges are the Patriarchs and above them the first Patriarch of Rome By whose Delegates the more Eminent Persons that were accused of Heresy the Arch-Bishop and the Bishops were here tryed according to the Authority shewed to be due to and to be anciently used by him in Chur. Gov. 1. Part. § 9.20 c and 2. Part § 77 and other Inferior Persons were tryed by the Bishop who was their Ordinary Queen Mary having revived the Statutes repealed by King Henry and Edward concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Church's Authority as hath been noted before § 49. The issue of which Tryal by the Church if they found guilty was either Deposition only from their Benefice and Office for Breach of her Canons or also Excommunication excommnnicatione majori and Degradation for Heresy and Opposition of her Definitions hi matters of Faith and so the yielding them up as now by degradation rendred Secular Persons to have inflicted on them by the Secular Power the punishments appointed for such crimes by the Secular Laws as you may see in the Forms of the Condemnation of Cranmer Ridley c Fox p. 1603 and elsewhere and in the Profession of the Bishop of Lincoln to Bishop Ridley Fox p. 1597. All saith he that we may do is to cut you off from the Church for we cannot condemn you to dy as most untruly hath been reported of us c. § 65 As for the burning of such afterward whom the Church first condemns of Heresy To β. it is to be considered Where Concern the buâ—â—ing of those whâ— in Q. Mary days were by the Câ—u condemned of Heresy That the Secular Laws not Ecclesiastical appoint it and the Secular Magistrates not Ecclesiastical execute it Again That Protestant Princes as well as Catholick King Edward King James Queen Elizabeth as well as Queen Mary have thought fit to execute this Law upon Hereticks So in Edward the Sixth's days Joan of Kent Anne Askews Maid who was burnt in Henry the Eighth's days for denying the Real Presence and George Paris were burnt for Hereticks Fox p. 1180 And some other Anabaptists condemned and recanting were enjoined to bear their Faggots See Stow p. 596. And in Henry the Eighth's time Arch-Bishop Cranmer in the Kings presence disputed against Jo. Lambert for denying the Real Presence and the Lord Cromwel pronounced Sentence upon him to be burnt for it Fox p. 1024 1026. And the same Arch-Bishop being as yet only a Lutheran saith Fox p. 1115 prosecuted others upon the same grounds and also in the beginning of King Edward's Reign before that the Protector and his Party appeared much for Zuinglianisme committed to the Counter
by the a p. 40. Animadverter that no more power is there challeng'd to the Prince than was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and so much our Church-Governour if he will be constant to his own Principles cannot deny As to the Clause of the 37th Article § 75 that he tells us will be subscrib'd by all sides I hope therefore the Supremacy is there limited Else the Romanists will subscribe to an unlimited power of the Prince § 76 As to the Proviso that the adjudging of Heresie should be confin'd to the Canonical Scriptures four first General Councils and Assent of Convocation and that this should be no confinement of the Supremacy § 77 is to me a Paradox That the re-establishment of the Supremacy was not consented to by the Bishops who were in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign is true but whether those in the former Chapter have been prov'd a lawful Hierarchy must be left to the Reader This indeed was asserted strongly but proving is not this Author's talent A Reply to Chapter the 7th I Have hitherto not without great patience pursued this Author through all his windings and turnings and every where discover'd his constant fallacies and prevarications Being arriv'd to Q. Elizabeth's Reign in which the Reformation had it's last settlements We might justly have hop'd He would have been drawing towards a Conclusion But We have been wandring in a Labyrinth and after this tedious pursuit are brought to the same point again whence We first set out Four long Chapters have been spent to shew us what Supremacy King Hen. Ed. and Q. Eliz. assum'd and the same things are to be repeated again in above an hundred pages more § 78 to shew how they acted according to such Supremacy This I know is a frightful prospect to the Reader but that He may not be dejected I promise him to dispatch the succeeding Chapters with greater brevity and to give them an Answer more proportionable to their weight than their bulk § 79 We are told that King Henry by Virtue of his Supremacy committed the Laws Ecclesiastical to be reformed by 32 Commissioners But this was a Repetition when we met it last it was spoke to when it first offer'd it self and I should follow a bad pattern if his Example should invite me to repeat § 80 By Virtue of such Supremacy he set forth certain Injunctions concerning Matters of Faith These Injunctions were the genuine Acts of the Convocation The setting them forth therefore was not by virtue of any such i. e. any new Supremacy For it is confest that to enjoyn the observance of Synodical decrees by Temporal punishments was such a Supremacy § 16 as the Princes of this Land before Hen. 8th had and exercis'd These Articles set forth seem to him to have nothing in them favouring the Reformed Opinions and to discede in nothing from the Doctrine of former Councils Why then are they brought here as an Evidence that the Reformation was carried on by mere Civil Supremacy But however our Author and Sanders agree in their History they differ much in their judgment a Sand. p. 119 Sanders styles some of these Articles Heretical the Doctrines of Luther and Zwinglius and saith they are diametrically oposite to the Catholic Religion The body of them he compares to the Alcoran as made up of a Medley of Religions and after his usual manner of treating Princes calls King Henry upon this Occasion another Mahomet a Bur. V. 1. p. 218. The Reformers at that time thought a great Step made by these Articles towards a Reformation The Papists here were much mortified by them and the Papal party abroad made great Use of them to shew the necessity of adhering to the Pope since King Henry having broke off his Obedience to the Apostolic See did not as he had pretended maintain the Catholic Faith intire If therefore these Articles do in nothing discede from Popery it is because the New Popery of this Age has disceded much from the antiquated Popery of the former It is noted that the King by Virtue of his Supremacy commands these Injunctions to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judg'd by him agreeable to the Law of God Our Author had little matter for Censure when He urg'd this as an Accusation It is imputed that he paid more deference to Christ's Law then to the Act of a Convocation and chose rather to resolve his and his Subjects Obedience into the Autority of God then of Man Thus are We taught that we must put out our Eyes e're We can follow Our Spiritual Guide as We ought and in our Faith prescind from Christ's Autority if We will approve our selves good Catholics For if what is enjoyn'd by the Church seem agreeable to the Word of God and therefore is accepted such acceptance is accus'd of not being sufficiently resigning So that no one according to these Principles is a true Son of the Church but he who pays a blind Obedience to her Dictates either without any regard to God's Laws or in formal Opposition to them § 81 By Virtue of such Supremacy he publish'd a Book entitl'd A necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People The two a Bur. V. 1. p. 274. Arch-Bishops several Bishops and Doctors of the Church compil'd this book If the Doctrines in it were as Orthodox as they were thought necessary I see no harm in the Publication Whether they were or not concerns not us it being not pretended that these or the Six Articles which are here also urg'd were Acts of the Reformation § 82 Heresie became a thing of the Parliament's cognizance as well as the King 's Of their cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but also the adjudging of it What the nice difference is betwixt declaring and adjudging Heresie I am not so subtle a Nominalist as to determine Heresie was no farther of the Parliament's cognizance then to declare how it should be punish'd It was in this sense of the Parliament's cognizance before King Henry the 8th 's time when the Laws were made against Lollards and after King Edward's time when those Acts were by Q. Mary's Parliament reviv'd He has dwelt the longer on these Instances that We may see when a Prince together with his Particular Clergy §. 83 84.85 or rather whom out of them He shall choose claims a power of composing Models of Christian Faith and declaring all those his Subjects Heretics who do not believe and obey such his Determinations what danger what mutability occurrs in such a Nation as often as this Independent Head is not every way Orthodox It concerns not us what ill Consequences may attend the claim of such a power untill it be prov'd that we ascribe such an Autority of New-Modelling the Faith to our Princes The Apostolic Nicene and Athanasian Creeds we receive and embrace
Saying p. 92. If thus the Bishop will have Secular Princes to have nothing to do in the making or hindring any Decrees or Laws of the Church-men in matters meerly Spiritual but only to have such a sole dominion over the Secular Sword as that none can use it but he or by his leave in the execution of such Laws all is well but then the former-quoted Statutes of Henry the Eighth shew much more Power challenged than the Bishop alloweth This in Answer to the Bishop Secondly If it be further said here touching that particular Statute of much concernment 26. Hen. 8.1 c. quoted before § 26 and § 25. Namely §. 35. n. 4. 1 That the King shall have full power from time to time to visit repress reform all such Errors and Heresies as by any manner of Spritual Authority c lawfully may be reformed c. See §. 25. If it be said here that the King hath only this power therein ascribed to him to redress and reform the Errors and Heresies which are declared such by the Church by former Councils or by the Synods of his Clergy but that he hath no power given him to judge or declare what is Error or Heresy 1. First thus then he hath not all the power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction may be exercised as it follows in that Act because there is a Spiritual Authority also that may declare new Errors and Heresies or that may reform such Errors as have not been by Synods formerly declared such and it seems this He hath not Secondly Thus the Clause ending the Act any Custome Forreign Laws Prescription c notwithstanding is utterly useless because no Forreign Laws or Prescriptions deny this Authority to Kings to reform Errors c in their Dominions so that they still confine themselves to the precedent Judgments of the Church Thirdly In the Act fore-quoted 25. Hen. 8.19 c. 'T is granted to his Highness and Thirty Two Commissioners elected by him to annul and make invalid what former Synodal Canons they think not to stand with the Laws of God therefore they have power to judge which Canons are such and to reform them i. e to teach and declare the contrary truths to them when thought by them Errors against the judgment of former Synods and without the judgment of a new Synod and what is this but to judge and pronounce de novo what is Error and Heresy Enormity Abuse c Fourthly Lastly how comes the King or his Commissioners to be made the ultimate judge See before § 31.25 Hen. 8.19 c. in all Appeals touching Divine matters if he or they cannot judge in these what is Error Since some Causes and Controversies may haply come before him not determined by former Councils And for the Errors he reforms if he is still to follow the judgment of his Clergy what are such Errors how are there in these things Appeals admitted to him from the judgments of his Clergy § 36 This said to remove the mis-interpretation of that Act I will add to these Acts of Parliament which I have been reciting to you from § 26. those words in the Kings last Speech which he made in Parliament not long before his death reprehending his Subjects for their great dissension in Opinion and Doctrine If you know surely saith he that a Bishop or Preacher erreth or teacheth perverse Doctrine Lord. Herb. Hist p. 536. come and declare it to some of our Council or to us to whom is committed by God the high authority to reform and order such causes and behaviours and be not Judges your selves of your fantastical Opinions and vain Expositions Here making his Council or himself Judge of the Bishops Doctrines And those words in King Henry the Eighth's Proclamation 1543. made for the eating of White-Meats Milk Butter Eggs heese in Lent where he saith That the meer positive Laws of the Church may be upon considerations and grounds altered and dispensed with by the publick authority of Kings and Princes In Fox pag. 1104. whensoever they shall perceive the same to tend to the hurt and damage of their people Vnless perhaps he restrain damage here to Civil Affairs Contrary to the Eighth Thesis And those words in Cromwell's Speech when he presided as the Kings Vicar-General over the Clergy assembled to state something in Controversies of Faith then agitated betwixt the Roman Church and Lutherans who told them That His Majesty would not suffer the Scripture to be wrested and defaced by any Glosses Fox p. 1078. any Papistical Laws or by any Authority of Doctors or Councils By which if this be meant that we are not obliged to embrace the Doctrine of Scriptures according to those Determinations and Expositions which lawful Councils have made of them it is contrary to the Fourth and Seventh Thesis and overthrows the Government of the Church See the same thing said on the Kings behalf by the Bishop of Hereford against other Bishops urging the Doctors of the Church Fox p. 1079. I will conclude with what Bishop Carleton in Jurisdict Regal and Episcopal Epist dedicat § 37 And Calvin upon those Words in Amos 7.13 Prophecy not any more at Bethel for it is the Kings Court say of these times Bishop Carleton relateth out of Calvin That Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester being at Ratisbon in Germany upon the Kings Affairs and there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that Title Supreme Head of the Church given to Henry the Eighth taught that the King had such a power that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine and abolish old As Namely ' That the King might forbid the Marriage of Priests and might take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and in such things might appoint what he list And there likewise Bishop Carleton confesseth That when Henry the Eighth took this Title of Supreme Head c tho the sounder and more judicious part of the Church then understood the words of that Title so as that no offence might justly rise by it I suppose he means in that sense as himself takes it which is For the King to have a Jurisdiction Coactive in External Courts binding and compelling men by force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments to what the â—hurch in Spiritual matters defines For this Bishop saith that the Church is the only Judge of such matters See before p. 4. and in his whole Book written purposely on this Subject I do not find that he gives the King any Coactive Authority in Spiritual matters against any definition of the Church Yet saith he they that were suddenly brought from their old Opinions of Popery not to the love of the Truth but to the observance of the Kings Religion received a gross and impure sense of these words But this gross sense is such as Bishop Gardiner
expressed and as I think some of these Instances in the Parliaments Acts c made above do confirm tho some Writers in our latter times seem to be somewhat unwilling to acknowledge it And it is plain that Calvin in Amos 7. understood those times in which he writ to have given Supremacy to Kings and particularly to Henry the Eighth in this gross sense Whilst he complains thus Et hodiè quam multi sunt in Papatu qui Regibus accumulant quicquid possunt juris potestatis ita ut ne qua fiat disceptatio de religione sed potestas haec sit penes Regem unum ut Statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit sine controversiâ hoe firmum maneat Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt inconsiderati homines Dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me semper graviter vulneravit erant enim blasphemi cùm vocarent ipsum summum caput Ecclesiae sub Christo Hoc certè fuit nimium Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat quia peccarunt inconsiderato zelo Sed impostor ille Stephen Gardiner qui postea fuit Cancellarius hujus Proserpinae quae hodiè illic superat omnes diabolos he means Queen Mary Ille cum esset Ratisponae non pugnabat rationibus loquor de hoc postremo Cancellario qui Episcopus fuit Vintoniensis sed quemadmodum jam caepi dicere non multum curabat Scripturae testimonia sed dicebat fnisse in arbitrio Regum Statuta abrogare ritus novos instituere Si de jejunio agitur illud regem posse populo indicere jubere ut hoc vel illo die vescatur populus carnibus licere etiam prohibene Sacerdotes a conjugio licere etiam regi interdicere populo usum calicis in caenâ licere regi statuere hoc vel illud in regno suo Quare Potestas enim summa est penes Regem He goes on complaining Certum quidem est Reges si fungantur suo officio esse Patronos Religionis nutricios Ecclesiae Hoc ergo summoperè requiritur a Regibus ut gladio quo praediti sunt utantur ad cultum Dei asserendum but of whom shall they learn the right cultus Dei Of the Body of Church-men Then what will become of Galvinisme Sed interea sunt homines inconsiderati such as Arch-Bishop Granmer and others qui faciunt illos nimis Spirituales Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germaniâ In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur amongst the Genevois and the Swisses nunc sentimus quales fructus nascantur ex illâ radice quod sic Principes quicunque potiuntur imperio putant se ita Spirituales esse ut nullum sit amplius Ecclesiasticium regimen Non putant se posse regnare nisi aboleant omnem Ecclesiae authoritatem sint summi Judices tam in doctrinâ quam in toto Spirituali regimine Tenendum est igitur temperamentum quia hic morbus semper in Principibus regnavit ut vellent inflectere religionem pro suo arbitrio libidine interea etiam pro suis commodis Hodiè dolendae sunt nobis nostrae vices deplorandae Thus he goes on complaining of the reforming Princes in those times making themselves the summi Judices both in Ecclesiastical Doctrines and Government Himself mean-while thus being destitute of any Judge at all in these matters the judgment of Seculars being by his sentence invalid of the Church opposing him To this of Calvin may be added what Dr. Fern saith in his Consid concerning Reform 2. c. 6. § That the Bishops and Clergy under Henry the Eighth may seem at least in words and expression to have over-done their work not in that part which they denied to the Pope but in that part which they attributed to the King I add which part wrongly attributed to the King by consequence they faultily denied if not to the Pope yet to some other whose right it was And then I ask what person or persons this should be CHAP. IV. The Supremacy claimed by King Edward the Sixth § 38 NExt to come to the Times of Edward the Sixth Here we find the Power and Priviledges of the Kings Supremacy nothing diminished 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth but all those by Act of Parliament confirmed to Edward the Sixth which were formerly conceded to Henry the Eighth § 39 1. First Whereas there had been in former Ages several Parliament Statutes made in Confirmation of the Determinations of the Church and concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Bishops their Ordinaries As that Act 2. Hen. 4.15 That none shall preach hold teach or instruct contrary to the Catholick Faith or Determination of Holy Church and if any person shall offend in this kind that the Diocesan shall judicially proceed against him and that Act 2. Hen. 5.7 That for so much as the Cognizance of Heresy belongeth to the Judges of Holy Church and not to the Secular Judges such persons indited shall be delivered to the Ordinary of the Places to be acquitted or convicted by the Laws of Holy Church we find these Statutes repealed by King and Parliament 1. Edw. 6.12 c. And when-as they were again revived by Queen Mary 1 and 2. Mariae 6. c. with this Preface for the eschewing and avoiding of Heresies which of late have much increased within this Realm for that the Ordinaries have wanted authority to proceed against those that were infected therewith we find them again repealed as soon as Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown 1. Eliz. 1. c. the Tryal of Heresies and Hereticks by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy Church being admitted or excluded here according as the Prince was Catholick or Reformed § 40 Further we find it affirmed in the Act 1. Edw. 6.2 c. That all authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the Kings Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England Consequently in 1. Edw. 6.2 c. we find ordered That no Election be made of any Bishop by the Dean and Chapter but that the King by his Letters-Patents shall confer the same to any person whom he shall think meet and a Collation so made stand to the same effect as tho a Conge-d'-eslire had been given c. That all Processes Ecclesiastical shall be made in the name and with the stile of the King as in Writs at Common-Law and the Teste thereof shall be in the name of the Bishop These likewise to be sealed with no other Seal but the Kings or such as should be authorized by him Concerning which Act thus Dr. Heylin candidly Hist of Reform p. 51. By the last Branch thereof it is plain that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their hold of Divine Institution and making them no other than the Kings
and namely in Nero for one affirming also the Grand Seignior now to be the Head of the Church in Turky as you may see in the Conference between Dr. Martin and him at his Tryal in Fox p. 1704. Which Relation if any think false let them say what other answer upon the former Suppositions there can rationally be returned § 60 3. For their refusing to officiate or celebrate Divine Service 3. and administer the Sacraments according to the former established Church Liturgies received and used by the whole Catholick Church for near a 1000 Years or so much as to be present at it which Divine Service they accused not only of many superstitious Ceremonies but of many Errors also and of flat Idolatry in the Adoration of Bread in the Eucharist See Fox his Preface to the Reign of Queen Mary p 1270 and Bishop Ridley's Conferences with Latimer Fox p. 1560 and 1562 1563. § 61 For their maintaining several Tenents 4. especially about the Holy Eucharist such as had been formerly declared Heresies by the Definitions of lawful Superior Councils As 1. First the denying of any corporal Presence of Christ either with the consecrated Elements or with the worthy Receiver whether by way of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation urging that because this Body was in Heaven ergo it could not be in the Sacrament and affirming only a Real Presence I give you the very words of Bishop Ridley if taken generally and so as it may singnify any manner of thing which belongeth to the Body of Christ Hence Bishop Ridley's expressing of the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist are such as these That the Consecrated Bread is the Body of Christ in remembrance of him and of his death That besides a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament the Grace also of Christ's Body i e. the Food of Life and Immortality is given to the faithful That we recieve the vertue of the very Flesh of Christ the Life and Grace of his Body The Grace and the Vertue of his very Nature Spiritual Flesh but not that which was Crucified That Christ's Body is in the Sacrament because there is in it the Spirit of Christ i e. the Power of the word of God which seedeth and cleanseth the Soul That the Natural Body and Blood even that which was born of the Virgin Mary c is in the Sacrament verâ— realiter and that the difference from the Roman Church is only in modo in the way and manner of Being how is that for we saith he confess it to be there Spiritually by Grace and Efficacy because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine receiveth effectuously Christ's Body and Blood i e. he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion But otherwise Christ's Body is in the Sacrament really no more than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in Baptisme therefore the Question proposed thus An Corpus Christi realiter adsit in Encharistiâ In King Edward's time was held Negatively See Disput. Oxon. 1549 and King Edw. 28. Article Thus Ridley who spake most clearly Fox p. 1703 and whose Schollar in this Opinion Cranmer was he being formerly a Lutheran and holding a Corporal Presence See these words of Ridley Fox p. 1598. in his last Examination and p. 1311 1312. in his stating of the first Question disputed on at Oxford which was not about Transubstantiation but about the Corporal Presence of Christ or the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which those Bishops denied as well as Transubstantiation The very same with whose Doctrine was that of Peter Martyr published in King Edward's days Disput Oxon 1â—49 Fol. 88. Illud idem corpus nos habere in coenâ Domini quod Christus obtulit in Cruce quoad substantiam veritatem naturae fateor sed non eodem modo quia spiritualiter i e. per fidem ipsi percipimus id vero substantiali corporali praesentiâ pependit in cruce Cum Chrysostomo id ipsum nos in Eucharistiâ habere corpus quod in Cruce fuit oblatum fatemur Sed non est modus recipiendi per praesentiam corpralem sed per praesentiam fidei quae potest res absentes spiritualiter praesentes facere Secondly The denying that the Eucharist might be offered as a Sacrifice propitiatory and asserting that there was in the Eucharist no other Oblation of Christ's Body than the Oblation of our Thanksgiving for Christ's Body offered on the Cross To use Peter Martyrs words Substantia hostiae nostrae est gratiarum actio de Corpore Christi tradito in Crucem Disput Oxon 1549. hac gratiarum actione fide atque confessione dixerunt Patres in Caenâ offerri corpus Christi Which matters are contrary to the Doctrines and Definitions of former lawful Superior Councils if those Positions stand good which have been said at large in the Discourse of the Eucharist §. 251 and Conc. Sacrif § _____ and which have been laid down concerning Councils in Ch. Gov. 4. Part which former Positions it must not be expected that I prove again wherever I make use of them § 62 To justify which Tenents not to be Heresies those Bishops were fain to appeal from Councils to Scripture and not to deny such Councils to be General or Superior but to deny the Authority of General or Superior Councils to be obliging when contrary to the Holy Scriptures i e. to that sense wherein themselves contrary to the Exposition of the Church interpreted the Holy Scriptures as was soberly urged to Bishop Ridley at his Tryal by the Bishop of Glocester Fox p. 1602. You saith he refusing the Determination of the Catholick Church bring Scripture for the Probation of your Assertions and we also bring Scriptures You understand them in one sense we in another How will you know the truth herein If you stand to your own Interpretation you are wise in your own conceit and Vae qui sapientes c. Isa 5.21 But if you say you will follow the minds of the Doctors and Ancient Fathers semblably you understand them in one meaning and we take them in another How will you know the truth herein If you stand to your own judgment then are you singular in your own conceit and cannot avoid the Vae It remaineth therefore that you submit your self to the determination and arbitrement of the Church with whom God promised to remain to the world's end Thus the other side argued with them But meanwhile what aversion they had of submitting to the judgment of the Church or Councils see in the forecited Conference of Bishop Ridley with Latimer Where having objected the Authority of General Councils for the Mass he answereth thus That whensoever they who rule and govern the Church are the lively Members of Christ and walk after the guiding and rule of his Word Councils gathered together of such Guides do indeed represent the Universal Church and have a
Thomas Dobb a Master of Art upon the same Account who also dyed in Prison Fox p. 1180. In Queen Elizabeth's days one Jo. Lewes and Matthew Hammond were burnt for Hereticks after they were first condemned by the Bishop and so delivered over to the Secular Power as those were in Queen Mary's Reign So also was Hacket executed then partly for Heresy and Blasphemy See Hollin Qu. Eliz. A. Reg. 21. 25. and Two Brownists Coppin and Thocker hanged at St. Edmunds-bury An. Dom. 1583 for Publishing Brown's Book written against the Common-Prayer-Book Likewise several others in her time condemned and recanting bare their Faggots See Stow p. 679 680. Stow p. 1174 Cambden 's Hist Eliz. p. 257. In King James's time Bartholomew Legat was burnt for an Heretick And in his time An. 3. Jac. 4. c. a Law was Enacted concerning Hanging Drawing and Quartering any who should turn Papist and be reconciled to the Pope and See of Rome tho a meer Laick tho one taking the Oath of Allegiance as several reconciled do The Words are If any shall be willingly reconciled to the Pope or See of Rome or shall promise Obedience to any such pretended Authority that every such Person or Persons shall be to all intents adjudged Traytors Is not this putting to death for pretended Heresy And to a Death worse than Burning So in Protestant States abroad Servetus by that of Geneva Valentinus Gentilis by that of Berne were burnt for Hereticks Calvin approving § 66 This to shew the Protestant's judgment concerning the justness and equity of the Law of burning Hereticks But whether this Law in it self be just and again if just whether it may justly be extended to all those simple People put to death in Queen Mary's days such as St. Austine calls Haereticis credentes because they had so much Obstinacy as not to recant those Errors for which they saw their former Teachers Sacrifice their Life especially when they were prejudiced by the most common contrary Doctrine and Practice in the precedent times of Edward the Sixth and had lived in such a condition of life as neither had means nor leisure nor capacity to examine the Church's Authority Councils or Fathers ordinarily such persons being only to be reduced as they were perverted by the contrary fashion and course of the times and by Example not by Argument either from reason or from authority and the same as I say of these Laity may perhaps also be said of some illiterate Clergy whether I say this Law may justly be extended to such and the highest suffering death be inflicted especially where the Delinquents so numerous rather than some lower Censures of Pecuniary Mulcts or Imprisonment these things I meddle not with nor would be thought at all in this place to justify Tho some amongst those unlearned Lay-people I confess to have been extreamly Arrogant and obstinate and zealous beyond knowledge and tho they had suffered for a good Cause yet suffering for it on no good or reasonable ground as neither themselves being any way Learned nor pretending the Authority of any Church nor relying on any present Teachers but on the certainty of their own private judgment interpreting Scripture as you may see if you have a mind in the Disputations of Anne Askew Fox p. 1125. Woodman the Iron-maker Fox p. 1800. Fortune the Smith Fox p. 1741. Allen the Miller Fox p. 1796. and other Mechanicks with Bishops and other Learned Men concerning the lawfulness of the Mass the Authority of the Church the Number of the Sacraments the manner or possibility of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist c themselves afterward penning or causing to be penned you may judge with what Integrity the Relations which we have of the said Disputations See more concerning the erroneous zeal of such like Persons in Fox Monuments later Edition Vol. 3. Fol. 242. 286. 396. 886. § 67 This concerning the lawful Ejection of those Protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places To. γ. 1. which if lawful so also will be the introduction of those who were chosen in their rooms tho this Introduction was * 1. whilst they Living or * 2. without their or the Metropolitan's Consent 1. Tho whilst they Living if such Election of them be after that the other are justly ejected Of this none can doubt Now most of the Protestant Bishops were ejected at the very beginning of Queen Mary's days for being married tho some of them not so speedily sentenced for Heresy But suppose the Introduction of the other was whilst they living and before their lawful Ejection yet these Bishops that are so unjustly I grant introduced if after that the others are ejected then their Superiors having the power to elect into such place do acknowledge and approve them from thence forward begin to be legitimate and enjoy a good Title § 68 2. To δ. 2. Tho without their or the Metropolitan's Consent For if the Arch-Bishop without whose consent the Canon permitteth not any Bishop to be consecrated in his Province be upon just cause and especially upon suspicion of Heresy in any restraint so as he cannot safely be suffered either in respect of the Church or State any longer to execute his office till cleared of such guilt here his Office is rightly administred as in Sede vacante by some other whether it be by some Bishop of the Province his Ordinary Vice-gerent or Substitute in such Cases or by the Delegates of that Authority which in the Church is Superior to the Arch-Bishops or by the consent of the major part of the Bishops of such Province And so Arch-Bishop Cranmer being at Queen Mary's first Entrance accused 1. of being Married an Irregularity incurring Deposition and also confessed and 2. of Treason and 3. of Heresy and for the Second of these being by the Queen's Council immediately imprisoned and shortly after condemned to dye before the Consecration of any new Bishop his Office was now lawfully supplyed by another either by Cardinal Pool the Popes Legat or by the Bishop the next dignified Person after the Arch-Bishop in the Province or by whomsoever the Queen should depute as for any exceptions that the Arch-Bishop could make against it since he acknowledged her for the Supreme Head of the English Church Or if notwithstanding such his restraint or condemnation according to the Canon no new Bishop could be made without the Arch-Bishop's consent yet could Arch-Bishop Cranmer justly claim no such Authority from the Canon as indeed he never did 1. Because he held the abrogation of such Canons to be in the Power of the Prince as the Supreme Head of this Church at least when assisted with the Parliament and major part of the Clergy And so then was this arguing ad homines abrogated by Queen Mary appointing allowing these new Elections 2. Because he had consented to the Statutes made formerly 25. Hen. 8.20 c. and 1
those scruples that were made by some against the Oath And further her Majesty forbiddeth her Subjects to give credit to such persons See Canâ—od Hâ—st Elâ—z p. 20. who notify to her Subjects how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm may challenge authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church Wherein her Subjects be much abused For her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that was challenged and lately used by King Henry and King Edward which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Grown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal so as no other Sovereign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them but this Sovereignty and Rule I suppose must be understood to extend to all the Particulars which Queen Elizabeth 's Statute but now recited alloweth to belong to it and wherein Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it And if any Person who hath conceived any other sense of the Form of the said Oath i. e. that in it the Queen challenged Authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation sense or meaning i. e. that she had such Sovereignty as was challenged and lately used by her Father and Brother Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such Person in that behalf as her Obedient Subject Thus the Admonition and the same is said in the Statute 5. Eliz. 1. c referring to the Admonition That none other Authority was by that Oath acknowledged in her Majesty than that which was challenged and used by those Two Kings See likewise 1 Eliz. 1. c the Repeal of the former way of the Tryal of Hereticks that was revived according to the former Statutes by Queen Mary leaving the Supremacy in Spirituals to Church-men § 72 Neither do the several things Where Concerning certain qâ—alifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed that are noted by Dr. Fern in his Examen of Champny 9. c. § 16.20 and others as qualifications and bounds of the Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth seem to come home to their purpose so far as to render it justifiable There are urged by them 1. The Stile she used in calling her self not Supream Head but only Supream Governor 2. The Words in the Admonition viz. Her Majesty doth not challenge any other Authority than under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons c as the words are recited but now 3. The words of the 37. Article of the Church of England relating to these of the Admonition We give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers 4. The Qualification of the Authority of the Queen's Commissioners to judge or determine Heresies Provided always that such persons authorized c. See the Words quoted before § 70. § 73 But to these it is rationally replyed And the Replies to them Reply to the First To the First That if the same and as much power be still signified by the Queen's Title now as was before by the other which hath been shewed but now in the Statute in the Admonition c what matters the varying of words that alters nothing in the sense Neither is the Title of Head of the Church so it be understood subordinate to Christ incompetent to some person or other here on earth § 74 To the Second To the 2d That the words quoted out of the Admonition may indeed be taken in such a general sense that all sides will willingly subscribe to For the Queen hath a Sovereignty and Rule over all manner persons born within her Realms so i. e. in such manner as no other Forreign Sovereign Power hath namely in this manner to punish her Subjects whatsoever with the Temporal Sword either for the Breach of the Church's Canons and Decrees or for the Breach of her own Laws Again That the words may be taken in such a sense as that tho they signified no more of which presently yet none can justly subscribe them supposing those things true concerning the Western Patriarch and concerning Superior Councils and concerning Church Constitutions which are laid down in the First and Second Part of Church Government and in the Fourth and Eighth Thesis namely if they be taken in this sense That no Forreign Power hath any Ecclesiastical Superiority or Jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever over the Church of England without reflecting on this Controversy at all namely Whether the Sovereign Power here at home for the judging and reforming of what is Error Heresy Superstition c and for the abrogating or establishing the former Liturgies of the Church Canons of Superior or also National Synods doth lye in the Prince or in some others viz the Clergy of this Nation or also in the Parliament or in all these jointly so that the Clergy can do none of these things without the Prince or Parliament nor Prince without the major part of Clergy But these Two Senses of these words of which the later is not justifiable are both of them too much restrained in respect of the intent of this Admonition as may be gathered from the Precedents in the same Admonition where the Queen's Sovereignty is extended to all the Particulars wherein Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it And from the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. but now recited which surely this Admonition was not written to contradict or repeal And from the ordinary practice of these Princes which shall be more shewed anon without which Practice such Reformation could not have been effected and therefore this Practice must be justified And from the Testimony of the Protestant Writers who vindicate and maintain a Supremacy of a much larger extent and answerable to the Expressions in the Acts of Parliament even to the Prince's not only ruling over all Persons Ecclesiastical but judging and determining in matters Ecclesiastical what therein is Dissonant from or Consonant to Gods Word and then establishing it in their Dominions tho contrary to former Church Canons tho without or against the Vote of the major part of their own Clergy as shall be shewed below § 203 c which thing also is maintained to have been done by the Holy Kings of Israel § 75 To the Third the same may be repeated which is said to the
compulsion See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law saith she unless it be a late law of your own making for the altering matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the name of a Law both for c and for the partiality used in the same But I am well assured that the King his Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal c. Thus the Lady Mary An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my remembrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector Sec before §. â—04 That in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor he in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops I have here on purpose thrown together thus many testimonies to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations and to manifest the more how neither the Prelates except those new ones whom King Edward advanced nor the inferiour Clergy neither at first nor at last were so conforming to the Kings proceedings as is pretended out of the charge against Winchester That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received c. § 126 To θ. 1. To θ. First That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward we do not find that the major part of the Clergy in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth year of the Kings Reign is pretended to have consented to any of them save one namely the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in the second year of the King and that consent was also had after this Book was first passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament as may be gathered 1. Both by the Act which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men which were in all fourteen whereof seven Bishops two of which were Cranmer and Ridley but not any concurrence or authority of a Synod See Heylin Sect 5.7 3â— But had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament this which was more would rather have been mentioned than the other which was less and which Act also by vertue of it self see before § 40. not of arty Synodical Act confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book 2. And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward which was authoritate Regis Parliamenti as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Which stile differs much from either of these A Rege Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus i. e that it might be established by the Church's authority or Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi Parliamento propositus i. e that being established by the Church it might be enjoyned also under temporal punishments by the State Laws Neither do the words following in that Article see them recited before § 110. Express any authoritative ratification but only a single testimony of their judgment concerning those Forms or say any thing which any other person void of authority may not use Now of this consent of the Convocations An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first Common-Prayer-Book a chief motive besides fear of punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments Injunctions or Laws was as I conceive this because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church as likewise the later Common-Prayer-Book more omissions but no declaration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine of which I shall say more by and by And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have staid here See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable tho these omissions I excuse not as faultless or not offending against former Church-Canons But his Reformation proceeded much further to the condemning also of the Church's tenents and practice which cannot be shewed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government of which I shall speak hereafter But as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions from the paucity of the number of those who were imprisoned or ejected in comparison of the rest the argument is not good First Because many more might dissent and refuse obedience thereto then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it Might Nay did dissent for the Parliament beggeth their pardon see before § 120 and it is accounted a prudent policy of State where very many are guilty only to punish some of the chief for Example sake Secondly And again many more might be ejected or questioned for this than are by name mentioned in Fox or others and were so if you consider the testimonies before cited Thirdly But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected yet as where all the rest unanimously accord this restraint of a few changeth not the Church-affairs so when such a body is divided and all the rest are not of one mind this withdrawing of a few especially if these be the prime Leaders and the introducing of so many new voters who are of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting six new ones in their places may render that which was before a major and the more prevalent now a lesser and a weaker part and consequently if they be unjustly withdrawn will render the Act of this major part invalid § 127 Secondly 2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer c. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy inforcing as other Ecclesiastical Injunctions of the King so also the new Form of Communion before it was proposed to any Parliament or Convocation for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies that I may spare the taedium of repeating them But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-power had been removed from them touching which see their sad complaint before § 47 may be gathered 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Convocation the Six Articles and the the Necessary Doctrine 31. Hen. 8.14 c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days in the very beginning of which Arch-Bishop Cranmer called a Synod of them wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation but could not See
such Supremacies upon the Crown Ham. Schis c. 7. p. 150. to prove that they belong not to the Pope as long as they may belong to the National Clergy and to Councils The qualification of such Regal Supremacy which Dr. Fern Examin Champ. p. c. § 16.20 hath produced as mitigating it see replyed to before § 72. And see himself if I mistake him not also defending such Regal Supremacy as is here affirmed to be claimed in the places quoted below § 205 and not only him but many other learned Protestant Divines And therefore well might those Bishops understand the regal Supremacy in the Oath in the same latitude as these still do allow and maintain it But see Mr. Thorndike Just Weights 20. c freely acknowledging what we have said here and desiring therefore the abrogating of this and the enacting of a new Oath It is manifest saith he that not only the unlimited power of the Pope but all authority of a General Council of the Western Churches whereof the Pope is and ought to be the chief Member may justly seem to be disclaimed by other words of the same Oath and that whereas the Pope usurped not only upon the Crown but upon the Clergy of this Kingdome all those Usurpations as welt upon Clergy as King are by the Act of resumption under Hen. 8. invested in the Crown So that when the Oath declares to maintain all Rights and Preeminences annexed to the Crown you may understand that maintenance which a Subject owes his Sovereign against those that pretend to force his just claim from Him But you may also understand that maintenance which a Divine owes the Truth in asserting the Title of the Crown to all Rights whatever now vested in it Which maintenance he that believes that some Rights of the Church are invested in the Crown ought not to undertake And again below There is an appearance saith he that the mis-understanding of this Oath hath produced an opinion destructive to one Article of the Creed viz. to the being of any Visible Church as Founded by God And besides it is not possible that all they who are called to this Oath by Law can ever be able to distinguish that sense in which they ought from that wherein they ought not to take it And therefore of necessity the Law gives great offence and that offence is the sin of the Kingdome and calls for Gods Vengeance upon it Therefore there is great reason why the Kingdome should enact a new Oath c. Thus He. § 185 2. For the second part of the Oath 2. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs how far it is to be acknowledged And therefore I do utterly renounce all Forreign Jurisdictions c You are first to note That from what is said before in the Oath that the Queens Highness is the only Supreme Governor in all Ecclesiastical things it followeth That so far as the Oath binds any to renounce all Forreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or Authority save the Queens that is for any such Jurisdiction in Spirituals as the Queen claimeth whether such Jurisdiction be challenged by the Pope or by a General Council for here none is excepted so far the Oath bindeth him also to renounce all Domestick Jurisdiction and Authority whether it be of the Arch-Bishops or Bishops or of a National Synod in respect of such Jurisdiction as is claimed by the Prince So that none who holdeth any such Jurisdiction in the Clergy at home as others put in the Clergy or some Prelate abroad may think that he escapeth the reach and power of the Oath because of the word Forreign inserted therein Having given you this pre-caution then that you swear as well against any Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or the National Synod of this Church as of the Pope or of a General Council concerning the Jurisdiction that is challenged by the Prince Now to consider the thing it self There may be such a Forreign or also Domestick Ecclesiastical Supremacy and Authority as no way opposeth the good of the Civil State nor any just priviledge of a Secular Prince but rather much corroborated and fortifieth it and again as mainly tendeth to the unity and peace of the Church which thro all the world is only one Corporation and Body And such Supremacy may be instituted and established either by our Saviour or by his Apostles or later Ecclesiastical Constitution as the varying State of the Church may stem to require Neither can an Authority thus established and relating only to Spiritual Affairs be justly disturbed or annulled by any Secular Governor neither Heathen as is granted by all nor Christian as there is more reason that he who is a Son and Subject of the Church should never do it as hath been she wed in Chur. Govern 1. Par. § 38. and Succes Cler. § â—â— Again there actually is such a Supremacy for some Spiritual matters by some of the former ways given to the Representative of the whole Church Catholick General Councils which have been hitherto Forreign and perhaps will always be so which Councils have a Jurisdiction and Authority over and whose Canons and Decrees do oblige particular Churches tho the Secular Magistrate dissent or oppose as the Emperor Constantius opposed the Nicene condemnation of Arianisme Secondly There is also given at least in the intervals of these Councils a Supremacy to the Bishop of the Apostolick See of Rome to whom also is committed the care of seeing to the execution of the Canons and Decrees of these General Councils in all particular Churches as hath been shewed in Chur. Gov. 1. Par. And such Supremacy was ratified by the Clergy of this Nation as formerly so in their late Synods under Qu. Mary and also under Qu. Elizabeth See before § 175. Art 4. which Synods stood in force at the imposition of this Oath Of these Supremacies thus Mr. Thorndike Due way of composing differences p. 7. It were a contradiction for the Church of England to pray for the Catholick Church and the unity thereof and yet renounce the Jurisdiction of the whole Church and the General Councils thereof over it self King James acknowledgeth the Pope to be Patriarch of the West that is Head of the General Council of the Western Churches And Thomas Lord Bishop of Winchester under Queen Elizabeth being demanded why we own him not so in effect Answereth bluntly but truly because he is not content with the Right of a Patriarch For should he disclaim the pretence of dissolving the bond of Allegiance should he retire to the Priviledges of a Patriarch in seeing the Canons executed the Schism would lye at our door if we should refuse it deny such his Patriarchship Thus He. Now whether upon ones demanding more than his right we may afterward lawfully deny him his right or for ever after swear that he hath no right judge you as likewise whether the General Councils have lost their right together with their
other general words whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfections or disability that could be objected against the same So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness i. e. in Ecclesiasticals which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops See it before §. 70 it is evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against the said Consecrations c. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church in these Church matters And the Answer seems in effect this That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church § 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject this reformed Clergy being such persons as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince and therefore it is not strange if the Prince acted no more against but by them and began now a-new to use the Synod more than the Senate in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs CHAP. XIII The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy § 196 ONly before I conclude this Discourse let me shew you The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it after all the rest that as it hath been affirmed here that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines tho they contend that our Princes did not so Yet as if they doubted much whether they should be able to make this good do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves that a Prince when there is a necessity that requires it of which necessity the Prince is to judge or in cases extraordinary of which cases the Prince is to judge may lawfully reform Religion both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline contrary to the major part of the Clergy these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Superiors Nay also in the beginning of this work such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent because if they should once maintain That no Reformation is valid which is done against the major part of the National Clergy by the same reason they must assert that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy or of the Church or Council to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience § 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion is that of Dr. Field He The Opinion of Dr. Field after these specious Concessions We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on according to former resolutions Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion but in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils in matters not formerly determined to the judgment of his Clergy i. e. the major part thereof Yet after such specious Concessions I say he proceedeth as it were to protect the Reformation on this manner Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service there is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them But because they may fail they i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and not onely single persons but Synods of them else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods and a minor by the major part and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these to other Judges either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over Gods people and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily Thus Dr. Field § 198 Who not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi cui deplorata res est here seems to six the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice to others or at least cannot fail so soon as the whole body of the Clergy may what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they As one that hath a charge over Gods people and is to see that they worship God aright as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he or as if he could judge what was
unto him and having their consent and direction in it may in case of intermission or corruption restore such practice to its primitive lustre tho he do it against the major part of his Clergy or Synod as you may see p. 83. 3. He intimates That if the Reformation be in such point of Doctrine as hath been before defined in a General Council or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced the King consulting with some of his learned Bishops may enjoyn it without or against a Synod 4. But he saith That if the Reformation be in such points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner the King only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted So he saith p. 85. That the King cannot determine Heresies From this by necessary consequence it follows That if any point of doctrine hath been determined by a former General Council I add or lawful superior Council the King neither against nor without I add nor with the major part of his Clergy can reform or establish the contrary of such doctrine § 207 Now to reflect op the Drs. Limitations Concerning the two last I leave it to your judgment whether in the instances made above the contrary to several doctrines determined by former lawful General or other superior Councils have not been established by our reforming Princes without or also against the major part of their Clergy And again whether other doctrines not determined by any former lawful Council yet have not thus also without any such consent been established by them Both which Dr. Heylin condemneth Again concerning all these limitations I ask when all or the major part of Clergy affirmeth that such things are not corruptions in manners nor abuses in Government that such practices are not primitive nor universal that such doctrines are not formerly so determined and none or a smaller part of the said Clergy saith the contrary How will Dr. Heylin here direct the Kings Supremacy Will he here allow him after hearing all to follow his own judgment Or that of the fewer against his Synod or the major part thereof It seems in some things he will not allow it See Limitation the fourth and it seemeth unreasonable to be allowed in any of the rest For why should not a Synod discern corruption in manners as well as he or some few Or why may not he mistake and miscall their reason passion or partiality But if the Prince follow the major part of his Clergy in their judgment of what are corruptions what are formerly defined c. then cannot the Prince be said or supposed to reform such corruptions c. against this major part whose judgment in this Reformation of them he followeth § 208 The last I shall propose to your considering is Dr. Fern Of Doctor Pern Exam. Cha. 9. c. 19. §. p. 290. who speaketh somewhat more particularly in this matter He first affirmeth indeed in behalf of the Clergy that the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline And That they have a coercive power in a Spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for Spiritual binding and loosing will reach And that this power is coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church I suppose therefore upon Christian Princes also if obstinately gain-saying And 20. § He quoteth 1. Eliz. 1. That the judging of Heresy is restrained for Heresies past to the Declaration of the first General Councils and for such as shall arise to the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation And § 15. he saith It is a mistake to think that the Prince by his supreme power in Spiritual things is made supreme Judge of Faith and decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Again Ibid. he affirmeth that the Prince's giving publick establishment to the doctrine defined by the Clergy and evidenced to him is not in order to our believing as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us in saying our belief follows the State but to our secure ind free profession and exercise of Religion For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe as Pastors of the Church are 1. Cor. 3.9 And § 21. That we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church who have commission to do it in order to our believing and must yield obedience to the establishment of the Sovereign either by doing and conforming thereunto or by suffering for not doing according thereunto And § 25. That it is the office of the Pastors of the Church to evidence what is truth and conformable to Scripture and that in order both to our and to the Prince's believing Again § 21. he affirmeth that the immediate and ordinary judgment of matters of Religion belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that a secondary judgment is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Laws that which is evidenced to him upon the judgment and advice of the Pastors of the Church or as § 23. for his being satisfied that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the law of Christ before he use or apply his authority to the publick establishment of it and this upon a double reason the first of which is In respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss as the Kings of Israel and Judah were § 209 But then he saith these things further in behalf of the Supremacy of the Prince which seem to reduce the Clergy's power into a very narrow compass and to render it uneffective toward the Subjects of the Church unless thro the coacting of the Prince He saith then 1. That Princes are not bound to follow the directions of the Clergy any further than they are evidenced to them See 9. c. § 21. Princes are not meer Executioners of the determinations and decrees of the Church Pastors nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion whatsoever they define and propound for such But they are to do their work so as it may by the demonstration of truth be evidenced to the Sovereign Power That Princes are not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod where they fear the Synod will not go aright 2. c. 8. § Reformation of Gods Worship saith he may be
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
Nor are we quitted from our Obligation to the just Autority of our own Bishops because we do not submit to the Invasions of Forreigner But if by Church-Vniversal and Superior Synods is meant what other People understand by those words it rests to be prov'd that the Reformed plead an Exemption from their Autority § 46 The 46th Paragraph tells us of God's just judgment on Bishop Gardiner for having so zealously abetted the King's Supremacy But the divine Judgments are differently interpreted according to the different Sentiments of the Interpreters Other Writers tell us of severer Judgments inflicted on this Prelate than Deprivation and that for more flagrant crimes then asserting the Regal Supremacy He concludes this Chapter with the resentment of the Clergy for their lost Synodal Autority It is confest that the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical power too high in the times of Popery had now produc'd another of depressing it too much But this was the Infelicity of the Clergy not their Crime The same Autority which tells us the Clergy complain'd of this tells us also that those complainers were the Reformers But this is a truth which is industriously conceal'd and the Citation mangled lest it should confess too much Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est saith he from the Antiquitates Britannicae Clericis multo jam acrius atque vigilantius in divina Veritate quam unquam antea laborantibus say the Antiquities This Omission I believe was not for brevity sake for he doth not use to be so frugal in his Citations But the Reader was to understand by Clerici the Popish Clergy exclusively to all others and the decay of Synodal Autority was to be represented not as the grievance but the fault of the Reformers For this reason it is that we find this Author indecently insulting oven that pious Martyr Bishop Hooper All which I shall observe of it is this that what is here said of this Bishop's Appeal from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil power is applicable to St. Paul's a Acts 25.11 Appeal to Caesar The cause then was Ecclesiastical for They b Acts 25.19 had certain questions against him of their own Superstition And the Bishop might have us'd St. Pauls Plea c Acts 24.14 That after the way which they call'd Heresie so worship'd he the God of his Fathers believeing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets This Chapter more nearly concerning the Reformation it may not be amiss to give a brief Summary of what is perform'd in it It is said that all the Supremacy was confirm'd to Edward the 6th which was conceded to Henry the 8th But no reason is given why it should have been diminish'd that some Statutes against Heretics were repeal'd but this repeal not shewn to be without good reason or good Autority that all Jurisdiction Spiritual is said to be deriv'd from the Prince but this Expression taken in a due Sense may be justifyed and if it could not the Act being void we are under no Obligation to defend it that the Bishops are authoriz'd by Virtue of an Act of Parliament to excommunicate but this Interpretation is forc'd upon the Statute and the words taken even in this Sence will not bear the Stress which is laid upon them that 32 Commissioners were appointed to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical and 6 Prelates with 6 others to reform the Ordinal but nothing said to shew that these did not want a Reformation or that the Persons commission'd were not qualified for such a trust and these two urg'd as the mere effects of Parliamentary Supremacy which were the Synodical request of the Clergy that an Oath of Supremacy was impos'd on Persons entring into Holy Orders but this Oath invented by Papists and in that part which gives Offence since alter'd that an Hypothetical Submission of Bonner was not accepted but this such a Submission as that Bishop recanted That the consent of the Clergy was once not urg'd as necessary to make the Regal Injunctions valid But no reason assign'd why it should have been That the Clergy complain'd of their lost Synodal Autority But these the Reformers who yet are accus'd of being no Friends to it That Bishop Hooper appeal'd to the Civil power But so also did St. Paul The title of this Chapter least the Contents may have made the Reader forget it was The Supremacy claim'd by King Edward the 6th A Reply to Chapter the 5th WE are come now to Q. Mary's Reign the fatal Revolutions of which We would willingly forget did not the unseasonable importunity of these Men refresh our memories Our Author had acted the part of a skilful Painter had he cast a veil over this piece of his History for the Calamities of this Reign tend little to the Honour of that Religion and are never properly insisted on but by those who write Invectives against Popery But those Reflections which create horror in other men's breasts seem to have a different Effect on this Writer for in his entrance upon this Reign it is easie to discover such a new Warmth and Vigor in his Expressions as betray him to be in a more then ordinary rapture All that had been done in the two former Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy were now by an equal Autority of Prince Clergy and State revers'd repeal'd ejected His Discourse here has put on a new air and like the Orator in his triumphs over exil'd Cataline he prosecutes declining Heresie with an abiit excessit evasit But here to moderate his Acclamations let me tell him that this Prince who thus reverses repeals and ejects was the same a Burn. V. 2. p 237. that gave the Suffolk men full assurance that she would never make any Innovations or changes in Religion The same that made an open Declaration in Council b Bur. V. 2. p. 245. that though her own Conscience was staid in matters of Religion yet she was resolv'd not to compel or restrain others So that this after repealing reflects severely on those Guides who had the Government of her Conscience and those Principles by which She acted Lay-Supremacy was indeed at last ejected by her but not till the other parts of the Reformation were reverst by it's Influence If sending out Injunctions in matters Ecclesiastical using the Title of Head of the Church convoking Synods ejecting Bishops by Commission prohibiting some Preachers licensing others inhibiting the Pope's Legate to come into the Kingdom if these I say are admitted to be signs of a Lay-Supremacy it must be confest that Q. Mary was such a Supreme It is not therefore Regal Supremacy as such but as countenancing the Reformation which these men condemn Those Powers which in the former Chapter were Invasions of the Church's right do in this easily escape our Author's Censure We are told now of the power of the Prince when Protestantism is to be defac'd who in the establishment
Of Bishop Andrews § 201. Of Mr. Thorndike § 203. Of Dr. Heylin § 205. Of Dr. Fern. § 208. Conclusion of the Fifth Part. Wherein The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of these Princes transcendeth that challenged by the Patriarch § 214. That several Protestants deny such a Supremacy due to Princes § 215. CHAP. XIV Conclusion of this whole Discourse of Church Government § 218. Where Concerning the benefit that may be hoped for from a future free General Council for the setling of present Controversies § 219. OF Church Government PART V. Concerning the English REFORMATION CHAP. I. Eight Propositions whereby the lawfulness of this Reformation is to be tryed § 1 TO finish these Discourses of Church Government Eight Theses pre-posed whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation there remain yet behind some Considerations concerning the lawfulness and regularity of the Reformations made here in England in the days of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth according to the Principles already established Of which Reformations that you may make the more exact judgment 't is fit to remind you first of these few Propositions which have been cleared or do necessarily follow from what hath been cleared in the former Discourses And they are these The First §. 2. Thes 1. That amongst other offices and authorities which the Clergy Christ's substitutes by Clergy I mean the lawful church-Church-Authority have received from him as God's High-Priest and Prophet these are two principal ones First The power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judge and decide where doubts arise what is Gods Word and divine Truth what are errors in the Faith or in the practice and performance of Gods Worship and Service which errors in Practice always pre-suppose some error in matter of Faith And Secondly The power to promulgate teach preach and make-known such matters when decided by them to Gods people who are for doctrine in Spiritual things committed to their charge and to require their obedience and submission thereto with power to execute the Ecclesiastical Censures which have reference to things not of this but of the next world upon all such as disobey their Authority else what profits the Church a silent determination of a Controversy more than letting it alone a concealed more than a non-decision thereof And these things from our Saviours Commission they are obliged to perform and consequently to use such Assemblies and Meetings together Consults Summons Examinations c. Without which such things cannot be performed tho' any Civil or Secular power Heathen or Christian who perhaps may be an Heretick or Schismatick as some Christian Princes have been Arians doth oppose them So a Christian Emperor Constantius being an Arian and prohibiting in his Empire the promulgation of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity yet the Western Catholick Bishops nevertheless did promulgate their definition of the Consubstantiation of the Son with the Father And indeed of these two Secular Powers the Christian if either seems to have the less capacity to hinder or resist them because he professeth himself with the rest of the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and a Scholar of the Church and because he so earnestly claimeth a Supreme Power and professeth an Obligation from God over all persons in all Spiritual matters to bind them upon Temporal punishments to the obedience of the Church's or Clergy's Determinations and Decrees But if he meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees orthodox and right this power is in effect claimed to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees whilst he pretends an Obligation both of himself and of his Subjects to the Churches Yet so it is indeed that all Princes whatever even the Heathen have such an Obligation from God Nor doth any Text of the New Testament give Christian Princes more Authority over the Church to restrain any Liberties thereof than it giveth to the Heathen Princes For all the Texts which are urged thence ordain obedience of Church men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned no less than to others And all Princes are obliged with the Sword which God hath given them not only not to persecute but to protect and defend his true Religion and Service in their Dominions whensoever it offereth it self to them and claimeth their Subjection and Protection See Psal 2.1 2 10 11 12. Tho the Obligation of some Princes to this may be more than that of others as he hath had more divine Truth revealed and hath received more favors from God and his Church See these things more largely handled before in Succession of Clergy c. And in Church Government 1. Part. § 38. § 2 Neither doth that which is ordinarily urged viz. That the Acts and Laws of the ancient Councills of the Church de Facto had always the Christian Emperors consent tho indeed they always had not not the Anti-arian Councills in Constantius his time and yet they were obliging in the establishing the Nicene Decrees prove that they were not of force without such consent nor doth the Councills intreating the Emperors consent when Christian prove they did this to legitimate the making or enjoyning of such laws for such laws they had formerly both made and imposed when Emperors were their enemies but to strengthen the observance of them Indeed the Prince who beareth the Secular Sword his giving to the Ministers of Christ his licence to exercise their office and their ecclesiastical censures in his dominions or in any part or province thereof as it implies the prohibiting of his officers or subjects any way to disturb them is to great purpose and therefore much to be desired But it sheweth not that it is in his just power to deny them such licence I mean in general for I meddle not here with the Princes denying some of them to do these things whilst he admits others or that his officers or subjects without it may lawfully disturb them in any part of their Spiritual Function Touching these things this is the concession of Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 366 potestatis merè Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae Conciones i. e docendi munus dubia legis explicandi as he saith ibid. p. 380 claves to which he adds Censurae p. 380 Sacramenta omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur p. 380 and somewhat more plainly of Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 1. c. p. 9. As far Spiritual Jurisdiction saith he standing in examination of controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders ordination of Priests and Deacons institution and collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give to nor take from the Church So he saith p. 42. That external jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever Secondly That for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop Commissioners by the Kings Highness to be appointed shall have full power and authority to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same and no further Appeals to be made These Commissioners therefore appointed by the King are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod or to the Patriarch § 34 Again 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament That no speaking doing or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the Kings Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy From which all that I would note is this that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy and do declare that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them Again it is Enacted by Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540 are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and shall suffer pains of death by Burning Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy without any Appeal as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19 c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis And the Protestants in justifying this Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Or A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People set forth by the King's Authority at that time or against the Six Articles which were in the same Act Established as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. the Publishing of which Act saith Lord Herbert p. 447. gave no little occasion of murmur since to revoke the conscience not only from its own Court but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law as is there Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. set down §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded § 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is That Henry the Eighth made no new Law See likewise his Vindic. p. 86. 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth were only declarative of old Law not enactive of new Law proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert and of the Lord Coke Reports Fifth Part. And 2ly Schism Guarded p. 61 62. That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso Fox the First of these if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke Reports §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. c. You shall find no such thing if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes You may find Appeals to the Pope or other Forreign Judge and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus to have been prohibited by former Laws that is in some particular Cases wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights Profits Securities or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor Vobis posteris vestris Regibus c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66. This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5 c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where upon pain of a Premunire all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome But this is in certain Cases only see Vindic. p. 81. Cases indeed Ecclesiastical but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects which all Ecclesiastical matters I hope neither are nor are pretended to be viz. these Cases Popes refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question Again The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent whereby saith the Statute the Kings Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away and so the Realm destitute as well of Council as of Substance surely these are Temporal Considerations and so the Crown of England which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope c. the Regality that is in those Temporal things above named In these Cases Bulls c from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited as infringing the Civil Rights And to this Statute in such case it is said there the Lords Spiritual gave their consent But meanwhile making Protestations saith the Statute that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church And Richard the Second notwithstanding this Act was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it 2. Rich. 2.7 Again you may find perhaps Appeals Bulls c prohibited in general without the Kings content first obtained thereto But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them but only out of an intention to examine them first whether any thing were contained in them
Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates And of this Act such use was made tho possibly beyond the true intention of it that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below § 145. Which saith he being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and under their own Seals as in former times In which Estate they have continued without any legal interruption from that time to this Thus He. Now to go on Consequently we find in 2. Edw 6.1 c. the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. by vertue of their Act to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer c therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication c. And in Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons who shall offend against this Act and Statute Which Clause by vertue of this Act and the like implies that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence or ought to excommunicate in all matters wherein the King and Parliament command it Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act forementioned p. 44. § 26. 26. Hen. 8.1 c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction there ascribed to the King or Queen involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication as well as others not for the King to exercise this himself but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute or not execute it so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King contrary to the Second and Third Thesis And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoyn any new or old Spiritual Laws may not correct what they judge Heresies Errors Vices c without the Kings consent had thereto See the Acts set down before § 31 32 33 c. it is but reasonable that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent for not obeying such Laws or for being thought guilty of such Crimes And this is the reason I suppose of Dr. Heylins Observation Hist of Reform p. 94. That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped that it was scarce able to fly abroad the Sentence of Excommunication wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward and of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England § 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3 and 4. Edw. 6.11 c. We find the Kings Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons half Seculars to be nominated by him as was done in Henry the Eighth's days in 35. Hen. 8.16 c. 27. Hen. 8.15 c. 25.19 c. who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church and these reformed Laws only established by a major part of them and published by the Kings Proclamation thence forward to stand in force The Statute runs thus Albeit the Kings Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal therefore you see the Statutes concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12 c. above-mentioned yet the same as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes having not of long time been put in ure nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted c that the Kings Majesty shall from henceforth during Three years have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy whereof Four to be Bishops and Sixteen of the Temporalty whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used and to gather order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought to his Majesty his said Council and them or the more part of them convenient to be used practiced or set forth within this his Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them and set forth by the Kings Majesties Proclamations shall by vertue of this present Act be only taken and put in ure for the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm and no other Any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding § 42 Again we find in the same Act Six Prelates and Six others such as the King should nominate delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests and this devised by them and set forth under the Great Seal to be used and none other The words are these Forasmuch as that concord and unity may be had within the Kings Majesties dominions some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests be it therefore Enacted that such Form as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in Gods Law by the King to be appointed or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose and set forth under the Great Seal shall by vertue of this present Act be lawfully used and none other any Law Statute or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding Here the King and Parliament assume power to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church and by their Delegates to constitute and by their sole Act to authorize new without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the Kings Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entring into Holy Orders I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome and his Authority Power and Jurisdiction And I shall never consent nor
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
Second To the Third and this part of the Article tho annexed for an Explanation is couched in such general Terms as that it will be subscribed to by all sides Fr. a S. Clara Expos 39 Articles alloweth it and saith also Hic Articulus a Gallis Parliamento Parisiensi salvâ communione Ecclesiae usurpatur Neither doth it contain any thing but which may well consist with the contradictory of that Proposition which follows there viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm § 76 To the Fourth 1. That the Proviso made by the Queen and her Parliament seems only to limit the Persons To the Fourth 1. whom the Queen shall nominate for her Delegates that they shall adjudge nothing Error or Heresy without the consent of Parliament and Convocation as likewise they made another Proviso that they should adjudge no Order of the Parliament in Ecclesiastical matters to be Error or Heresy See the same Statute but not to limit the Queen who holds the Supremacy of this Church and so these pretended Consequences thereof as her own right and not from Gift but Recognition only of the Parliament and Clergy and who in the Statute and I think in the Doctrine of our Divines See below § 204. c is acknowledged to have Power to reform Error Heresy Schism which presupposeth judging what is so without any such Proviso of consent of Councils or Parliament as also the pious Kings of Judah are urged to have done the like Or if the Proviso limit the Prince also That then the Practice of the Reforming Princes will not be justifiable nor their Reformation who have corrected many Doctrines without consent of Councils nay when lawful Superior Synods have decreed the contrary and without consent of Convocation and others without consent of Parliament But Secondly The limitation here whether of those Persons or of the Prince in adjudging Errors and Heresies in Divine matters if the words be narrowly considered seems to be in effect none For as you may see in the Proviso if such thing hath been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scripture i. e. seem to them to be so they need look no further for consent of Councils or Parliament or Clergy and no more need they to regard Councils tho defining the contrary if they have not defined so by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scripture of which thing they are to judge See before § 36. the Speech of the Lord Cromwel Thirdly Suppose there be a consent of the King and Clergy without or against Authority of Parliament such thing cannot be adjudged Heresy according to this Proviso if it be extended to the Prince Fourthly Supposing that the Clergy and Parliament judge something to be Error or Heresy which former Councils Superior to this National Synod have determined to be a Divine Truth this Proviso's allowing the Prince to follow the consent of his Parliament and Clergy upon pretence of the Councils not defining according to express Scripture will offend against the Fourth and Eighth Thesis § 77 Thus much to shew But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy that the same Supremacy that was acknowledged to King Henry and King Edward was also to Queen Elizabeth by her Parliament But you may observe that neither it in such a sense as it was challenged nor the Reformation that was effected by it were acknowledged or consented to by her Bishops or the Clergy I mean that Clergy which was in being at the beginning of her Reign which hath been proved already § 54. c to be a lawful Clergy And when these things touching Supremacy and Reformation were passed by the Parliament all the Bishops that sate there opposed them See Cambden A. 2. Eliz. probably because in those Two former Kings days they had by Experience learnt the Trespasses which such a Supremacy made upon the proper Rights and Jurisdictions of the Clergy and the Irreverence and Libertinisme and Distraction which the Innovation of the Liturgies and other Religious Rites brought into the Church besides the unlawfulness of a part reforming against the whole Thus at that time the Clergy behaved themselves Neither in lieu thereof can the Concessions to these or the like things by the former Clergy that was under Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth be here pleaded because these were retracted again by the Clergy in Queen Mary's time neither can the Concession of the Clergy of later times in Queen Elizabeth's Reign be urged because this Clergy was first changed and moulded to the Queen's Religion the former being unlawfully ejected as shall be shewed hereafter CHAP. VII The Actings of Henry the Eighth upon such Supremacy acknowledged in Ecclesiastical Affairs III. Head § 78 I have spoken hitherto from Sect. 26. concerning what manner of Supremacy it was that these Princes assumed How according to such Supremacy assumed these Three Prieces acted in Ecclesiâ—stâ—cal Affairâ— or also the Clergy or Parliament recognized as their Right In the Third place I promised to shew you how according to this their conceived right these Three Princes acted in matters Ecclesiastical And first to begin with Henry the Eighth First By vertue of such a Supremacy he committed the former Canons and Laws of the Church § 79 calling them the Pontificial Laws The Actings of Hen. 8th in Ecclesiastical Affairs In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastâ—câ—l Laws and compiling a new Body of them to the Arbitrement of Thirty Two Persons nominated by him half Laicks to be abrogated corrected reformed as they with his Confirmation should think meet Nec eo contentus saith the Prefacer to the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum Reprinted 1640. cordatus Rex Henry the Eighth ut nomen nudosque solum titulos a se suisque depelleret nisi jura decretaque omnia quibus adhuc obstringebatur Ecclesia Anglicana perfringeret huc quoque animum adiccit ut universam secum remp in plenam adsereret libertatem Quocirca tum ex ipsius tum ex publico senatus decreto delecti sunt viri aliquot usu doctrinâ praestantes numero 32 qui penitùs abolendo Pontificio juri quod Canonicum vocamus cum omni aliâ Decretorum Decretalium facultate novas ipsi leges quae controversiarum morum judicia regerent Regis nomine authoritate surrogarent And thus saith the King himself in his Epistle to all Arch-Bishops Barons c printed before the same Book Abundè vobis declaratum hactenusfuit quantopere in hac nostrâ Brittanniâ multis retro saeculis Episcopi Romani vis injusta religioni Christianae verae doctrinae propagandae adversata est Potestatem hanc huic cum divino munere sublatam esse manifestum est ne quid superesset quo non planè fractam illius vim esse constaret leges omnes decreta atque instituta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta
to them That as for himself whatsoever he had pretended his Conscience was fraught with the Religion of his Fathers but being blinded with ambition he had been contented to make wrack of his Conscience by temporizing c. Which calls to my mind likewise the death of Cromwel the great Agent for Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days who then renounced the Doctrines in this time called Heresies and took the people to witness That he dyed in the Catholick Faith of the Holy Church and doubted not in any Sacrament thereof i. e. I suppose as the Doctrine thereof was delivered in those times to be seen in the Necessary Doctrine before mentioned See Fox pag. 1086. comp Lord Herbert p. 462. As for those of the Council who thus complyed not they were after some time expelled as Bishop Tonstal Wriothsley the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel Goodwin p. 242. And as the Kings chief Governors in the Council so his Under Tutors who had the nearest influence upon him Dr. Cox and Sir John Cheek were men much inclined to the Reformation the one whereof in Queen Elizabeth's days Was made Bishop of Ely the other being imprisoned in Queen Mary's days and upon it abjuring the reformed Religion afterward saith Goodwin pag. 287. became so repentant for it that out of extremity of grief he shortly languished and dyed Such were his nearest Governors And the Complexion of his Parliament for he had but one all his days continued by Prorogation from Session to Session § 105. n. 2. till at last it ended in the death of the King you may learn from Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 48. The Parliament saith he consisted of such Members as disagreed amongst themselves in respect of Religion yet agreed well enough together in one common Principle which was to serve the present time and preserve themselves For tho a great part of the Nobility and not a few of the chief Gentry in the House of Commons were cordially affected to the Church of Rome yet were they willing to give way to all such Acts and Statutes as were made against it out of a fear of losing such Church-lands as they were possessed of if that Religion should prevail and get up again And for the rest who either were to make or improve their fortunes there is no question to be made but that they came resolved to further such a Reformation as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends Thus he As for the Kings Supremacy how far now some of the complying Clergy extended or acknowledged the just power thereof § 105. n. 3. even as to Ordination and Excommunication and administring the Word and Sacraments I think I cannot more readily shew you than by setting down the Queries proposed concerning these things in the first year of this Kings Reign to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and other Bishops and Learned Men when assembled at Windsor for establishing a publick Order for Divine Service and the Arch-Bishops answer to them printed lately by Mr. Stilling fleet out of a Manuscript of this Arch-Bishop Iren. 2. Par. 8 chap. The first Query is Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given them of God To which the Arch-Bishop answers to the King first in general That all Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their Subjects as well concerning the administration of Gods word for the cure of Souls as concerning the ministration of things Political That the Ministers of Gods word under his Majesty be die Bishops Parsons c. That the said Ministers be appointed in every State by the Laws and Orders of Kings That in the admission of many of these Officers be divers comely Ceremonies used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and seemly fashion That there is no more promise of God that Grace is given in the committing the Ecclesiastical office than it is in the committing the Civil Then he answers more particularly That in the Apostles time when there was no Christian Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods word might be appointed c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundantly the Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometimes the people did choose such as they thought meet thereunto And when appointed by the Apostles the people of their own voluntary will did accept them not for the Supremity Impery or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people ready to obey the advice of good Councellors A second Query is Whether Bishops or Priests were first And if the Priests were first whether then the Priest made the Bishop He answers That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Religion The third Query Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scriptures or no And whether any other i.e. Secular person but only a Bishop may make a Priest He answers A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governors also and that by authority of God committed unto them and the people also by their Election The fourth Query Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and Priest or only appointing to the office be sufficient Answer In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for election or appointing thereto is sufficient The fifth Query Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to conquer certain dominions of Infidels having none but temporal learned men with him it be defended by Gods Law That he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there or no And also make and constitute Priests or no In the next Query which I omit for brevity sake is mentioned also the ministring Baptism and other Sacraments He answers to this and the next That it is not against Gods Law but contrary they ought indeed so to do The seventh Query Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what Crimes And whether they only may excommunicate by Gods law He answers A Bishop or a Priest by the Scriptures is neither commanded nor forbidden to excommunicate But where the Laws of any Region giveth him authority to excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such crimes as the laws have such authority in And where the laws of the Region forbiddeth them there they have none authority at all and they that be no Priests may also excommunicate if the law allow thereunto Thus the Arch-Bishop explains the Kings and Clergies power and right concluding That he doth not temerariously define this his opinion and sentence but remits the Judgment thereof wholly to his Majesty This Text needs no
the Kings learned Council the which they should command in his Majesties behalf to be thenceforth observed of every person to whom they did appertain within their sundry Circuits These Injuctions as we find in the Kings Preface to them are directed to both Clergy and Laity for the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition and the extirpation of enormities and abuses by the King supreme authority assisted by the advice of his most dear Vncle the Duke of Somerset and the esidue of his most honorable Council And of the same universal Visitation made by the Kings appointment thus speak the Antiquit. Britann p. Paulo post omnes Papales caremoniae Missationes Exequiae Sanctorum invocationes mortuorum expiationes precationumque formulae è templis christianorum caetu sublatae atque deletae sunt Ad hanc rem a Rege visitatio totius regni generalis decernitur datique cum amplissimis mandatis certi Visitatores qui singulas Dioceses lustrarent And in this Visitation beside the general Injunctions for the whole estate of the Realm saith Mr. Fox Ibid. there were shops only which were by the Commissioners committed to the said Bishops with charge to be inviolably observed upon pain of the Kings Majesty's displeasure First That they should see and cause all the Kings Injunctions theretofore given or after to be given from time to time thro their Diocess faithfully to be observed Moreover that they should not at any time or place preach or set forth unto the people any Doctrine contrary to the effect and intent set forth in the Kings Highnesse's Homilies which Homilies are the stating of several Doctrinals in Religion neither yet should give Licence to preach to any but to such as they should know for at least assuredly trust would do the same of whom if any offended herein that they should inhibit and punish him and revoke their Licence § 109 Thus much at large out of Mr. Fox touching the first proceedings of the King and his Council in the Reformation In the prohibition of Preaching till he had setled Religion before the calling of any Parliament or Synod But to prosecute this matter a little further after the enjoyning the Doctrine of the Homilies and other matters the King finding much reluctance and opposition to them in many also of this Ministery licenced by their Ordinaries or rather in the Ordinaries also themselves He in the beginning of the second year of his Reign by his Proclamation February the Sixth inhibited any to preach except he were licenced under the Seal either of the Lord Protector or of Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury About this time he restrained likewise the Bishops themselves thought too actively busy in several places of their Diocesses how doth this agree with Mr. Fox his dumb Prelates See before § 107. to preach only in their own Cathedrals a thing saith Winchester writing to the Protector the like whereof hath not been known in any time Fox p. 1224 Some seven Months after neither finding those licenced by the Protector and Arch-Bishop of Canterbury conformable to the Doctrines prescribed By a Proclamation put forth Sept. 23 he inhibited the whole Clergy thro the Kingdome as well saith the Proclamation the said Preachers before licensed as all others whosoever they be to preach in open audience in the Pulpit or otherwise the reason there given because those licenced had abused the said authority of Preaching and had behaved themselves irreverently and without good order in the said preaching contrary to such good instructions as were given unto them the time of silence there prescribed because that his Majesty minded to see very shortly one uniform order throughout this his Realm and to put an end to all Controversies in Religion for which cause at that time certain Bishops and notable learned men by his Highness's command were congregated therefore he inhibited them until the said order shall be set forth which should shew them what Doctrine they were to preach § 110 The defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning K. Edw. Proceedings in matters of Religion composed by some such Bishops and other Learned as were elected to this by the Prince See the Proclamation in Fuller p. 388. Lib. 7. And thus much of the first beginnings and manner of King Edward the Sixth's Reformation In defence of which I find these things said by Dr Fern Consider of Reform 2. c. 9. § c. Dr. Hammond Schism 7 c. 14. § and other 1. That these Injunctions and the like of the King and Council were not set forth α but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to the authority of which Metropolitant much is to be attributed See Cart. Apost 34. and Concil Nicaen 4. c. and of β other Bishops and learned men first consulted with 2. That γ these Injunctions were not set forth as a Body of Doctrine which was an Act of the Synod held in the fifth year of King Edward's Reign but were Provisional only for the publick exercise of Religion and Worship δ which was necessary to be provided for in present Dr. Fern p. 74 75. 3. ζ That they extended only to some evident points the abolishing of Image-worship the restoring of the Liturgy in a known Tongue and Communion in both kinds and the abolishing of Romish Masses ε in which things was the main of King Edward's Reformation p. 71 ζ and that in them the King restored only what was established and used in the ancient Church viz. Divine Service in a known tongue Communion in both kinds without Image-worship p. 76. 4. η That the Kings Injunctions were generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Diocesses as is avouched expresly in the charge given in against Gardiner Bishop of Winchester p. 77. Fox p. 1219 where it is said ' That they were of all men of all sorts obediently received and reverently observed and executed save only of the Bishop of Winchester θ At least that the Kings Injunctions were consented and submitted to by the much major part of Bishops the Bishops imprisoned or ejected being a much smaller number compared with the rest Dr. Hammond p. 147. κ And then that it can make no real difference whether the Reformation begin from a vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Prince be by him received and established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy be by them generally received and put in practice according to the command of the Sovereign authority Dr. Fern p. 80.79 5. μ That at least in the fifth year of King Edward it must be granted that an Ecclesiastical Synod acknowledged the truth and lawfulness of the former Injunctions constituting the same things in a body of forty two Articles of Religion which Articles were shortly after published by the Kings authority with this Title prefixed
Bishop and to take away all Superstition the Communion Bread appointed to be such as is usually eaten at the Table but the purest of that sort that can conveniently be had See the Rubricks of King Edward's secondCommon Prayer-Book Fol. 126. And Visita S ck Fol. 22. And lastly whereas the first gives caution § 161 that so much Bread and Wine shall be consecrated Where Concerning the reduction of somethingâ— touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to K. Edw. frâ—st Form as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion except some shall be reserved for the Communion of the Sick The second omits any such caution ordering only that the Curate have the remains to his own use But the new Liturgy composed for Scotland well discerning what these alterations aimed at reduceth all things to the former way restores those words in the Consecration with thy holy spirit and word c. that They may be unto us the Body c. ordering again the Presbyter that officiates to take the Pattin and Chalice in his hands and leaving out also the caution of non-elevation which was inserted in the first Book of King Edward removes the words added in the delivering of the Mysteries Take and eat this c. and instead thereof adds aster the former words the people's response Amen according to the custome of Antiquity See Dionys Alexand. apud Euseb Histor 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7. mensis August ad Orosium quaest 49. spoken as a Confession of their Faith that they acknowledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini Lastly requires him that officiates that he consecrate Bread and Wine with the least to the end there may be little left and that what is left be not carried out of the Church but reverently eaten and drunk by such of the Communicants only as the Presbyter that celebrates shall take unto him § 162 All this could not pass the Observation of the Scotchman who in the Laudensium Autocatacrisis Much complained of 〈◊〉 Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 107. thus censures it In the next Prayer saith he i. e. that of Consecration are put in the words of the Mass whereby God is besought by his omnipotent Spirit so to sanctify the Oblations of Bread and Wine that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood From these words all Papists use to draw the truth of their Trans-substantiation wherefore the English Reformers i. e. the lattor scraped them out of their Books but our men put them fairly in And good reason have they so to do For long ago they professed that about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists except only about the formality and mode of Presence here quoting Mountag Appeal p. 289. They make an express Rubrick for the Priest's taking the Patin and the Chalice in his hand in the time of Consecration Which taking not being either for his own participation or the distribution to others why shall we not understand the end of it to be that which the Mass there enjoyns their Elevation and Adoration The Elevation being long ago practiced by some of our Bishops and Adoration when the Patin and Chalice are taken in the Priest's hands avowed by Heylin's Answ to Burt. p. 137. The English indeed in giving the Elements to the people retain the Mass-words but to prevent any mischief Autocat p. 111. that could arise in the people's mind from their sound of a Corporal Presence they put in at the distribution of both the Elements two Golden Sentences of the hearts eating by Faith of the Soul 's drinking in remembrance But our men being nothing affraid for the people's belief of a Corporal Presence have pulled out of their hands and scraped out of our Book both these Antidotes And the Mass-words thus quit of the English Antidotes must not stand in our Book simply but that the people may take extraordinary notice of these Phrases there are two Rubricks set up to their backs obliging every Communicant with their own mouth to say their Amen to them The English permit the Curate to carry home the relicks of the Bread and Wine for his private use but such Profanity by our Book is discharged The Consecrate Elements are enjoyned to be eaten in the Holy place by the Priest alone and some of the Communicants that day yea for preventing of all dangers a cautel is put in that so few Elements as may be consecrate And our Book will have the Elements after the Consecration covered with a Corporal c. § 163 Thus the first Form both when first established in King Edward's and when revived in King Charles's time found many Adversaries But did the new one escape any better No. For when all these offensive things in the second draught were amended according to several preciser fancies yet neither so did the second content all palats for the humour of Innovation knoweth no bounds Soon after it was framed as the chief body of the Clergy under Queen Mary deserted both it and the former and returned to the old Church-Service so the English Protestants that were then dispersed abroad at Franckford in Germany fell into great dissensions about it as some for so many against it See a fuller relation in Heylin's Hist of Reform in Queen Mary p. 59. c. And Calvin hearing the noise thereof as he had formerly used his Pen to the Protector c against the first Book so now doth he to the English in Franckford Calvin Ep. p. 213. against the second saying In Anglicanâ Liturgiâ qualem describitis i. e. the new one which some of them then used at Franckford mult as video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias Sic ergo a talibus rudimentis incipere licuit ut doctos tamen graves Christi ministros ultra eniti aliquid limatius ac purius quaerere consentaneum foret Si hactenus in Anglia viguisset sincera religio aliquid in melius correctum multaque detracta esse oportuit Nunc cum eversis illis princtpiis alibi instituenda vobis sit Ecclesia liberum sit formam de integro componere he thinks it seems any Pastors have power to make to themselves new Liturgies quid sibi velint nescio quos faecis Papisticae reliquiae tantopere delectant Amant ea quibus assueti sunt Hoc nugatorium puerile est c. Thus Calvin And so Bucer likewise in his censure of the first who died within a few weeks after he had writ it before the compiling of the second hath blamed many things that remain in the second After Queen Mary's death the second Book being restored here again to its former authority many of the more zealous Reformists both by words and writings made such opposition against it that Queen Elizabeth in terrorem executed two for this cause See
before § 65. and caused Arch-Bishop Whitgift to exact of all those that entred into the Clergy a Subscription that they would use it and no other Form Cambd Eliz. An. Dom. 1583. Ecclesiastical Can. 36. Which Subscription the party that opposed this Book at last prevailing was remitted by the Parliament 1640 and since that I need not tell you what it hath suffered The old Form supplanted the Mass the pew Form the old and then the old one being raised again out of its ashes in the new Scotch Liturgy which began all the troubles had almost brought in the late tumults a fatal overthrow both upon the new one and upon it self Thus much from § 143. concerning this Kings new Liturgies § 164 By vertue of such a Supremacy the King conceiving he had power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws In the abrogatio of several Ecclesiastical law coâ—â—eâ—ning Fastâ— Câ—lâ—bacy of the Cleâ—gy c. tho established by former superior Councils appointed the Parliament assenting thereto eight persons amongst whom were two Bishops Crannier and Thirlby and Peter Martyr to prepare this work Who drew up a body of them which was then made publick and since reprinted 1640. But indeed it appeareth not that this Reformation of them was ever ratified by King Parliament or Convocation See the Preface to Reform Leg. Eccl. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence and appointed those he thought fit by his own and the Parliaments authority and dispensed with whom he thought fit for not observing them See Stat. 2 3. Edw. 19. chap. Wherein after a Preface declaring That the Kings Subjects now had a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel and true word of God shewed declared and opened thro the mercy of God by the hands of the Kings Majesty and his most noble Father and thereby perceived that one day or meat of it self is not more holy more pure or more clean than another c. as if the former Church which they left had taught them otherwise after this Preface I say the King with the consent of Parliament first ordains That all manner of Statutes Laws and Constitutions concerning any manner of fasting or abstinence from any kinds of meats shall from the first of May next ensuing loose their force and strength and be void and of none effect Then sets down the days upon which he will have abstinence from flesh observed upon the Penalty of paying Ten Shillings and suffering ten days Imprisonment except those who being not enfeebled with age or sickness shall receive a licence to eat flesh from the King or his Successors For you must know that the maker of a Law hath power to dispense with it But here note that only abstinence from flesh is enjoyned on those days by this Statute not Fasting nor is Fasting enjoyned by any other Statute that I can find save only on Holy-day-Eves by a Statute made two or three years after Stat. 5 6. Edw. 6.3 â— Neither is there any obligation for the observation of either fasting or abstinence on these days by any express Canon of this Church reformed when as now the former Church-Laws concerning this were by the Kings Supremacy nulled in this Act but only by Act of Parliament and the end of such abstinence in the Parliament Act 5. Eliz. 5. c. professed to be only upon a Politick consideration the increase of Fishermen and Mariners c. And not for any Superstition saith that Act to be maintained in the choice of meats or as if such forbearing of flesh were of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man or that it is the Service of God otherwise than as other Politick Laws are and be Tho King Edward in the fore-cited Statute I confess mentions partly another end viz. because that due and godly abstinence is a means to vertue and to subdue mens bodies to their Soul and Spirit And I doubt not that many devout persons in this Church holding themselves bounden to the former Ecclesiastical Constitutions notwithstanding the Kings abrogation have still observed this duty in obedience thereto See likewise 5 6. Edw. 6. 3. c. the same Regal authority appointing the Holy-days And these things are done in Parliament without the least mentioning or referring to any Synod § 165 Likewise by vertue of such Supremacy the King with consent of Parliament ordained Staâ— 2 3. Edw 6.21 c. That all Laws positive Canons Constitutions heretofore made by man only which prohibit Marriage to any Spiritual Person who by Gods Law may lawfully marry shall be utterly void and of none effect and this upon consideration as it is in the Preface of the same Act of such uncleanness of living and other great inconveniences which have followed of compelled chastity as if the Church compelled any person to such chastity except hypothetically if he will take on him such a profession Or as if in this the Church enjoyned any thing which she first stated not to be in every ones power to observe if using a just endeavour Now whereas it is said in 5.6 Edw. 6.12 That the slanderous reproach of holy Matrimony i. e. of Priests doth redound to the dishonour of the Clergy of this Realm who have determined the same Marriage of Clergy to be most lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by their common assent as by the subscription of their hands Such assent as likewise that which they say to the same purpose in the 42 Articles Art 31. no way opposeth the Law of the Church For things most lawful by Gods Law as Marriage of the Clergy is by the Church allowed to be yet may be lawfully prohibited by the Church Whose Law in this matter the Clergy of this land justified in the third and fourth of the Six Articles Neither if they had here opposed it as they do not would their sentence be of any force because contrary to the Constitution of former superiour Councils § 166 By vertue of such Supremacy the King in the Sixth year of his Reign published by his authority 42 Articles of Religion containing several matters of Faith Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion dâ—fferent from the foâ—mer dectâ—â—â—eâ— of the Church which are there stated contrary to the definitions of former superiour Councils Which Articles are said indeed to have been first decreed and agreed on by a Synod of the Clergy held at London the Title presixed to them being this Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. Dom. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat regiâ authoritate in lucem editi But this I cannot thus easily concede Where whether these Articles were passed by any Synod notwithstanding this Title Thus far indeed I grant that they seem to be compiled or consented to by some members of
Quod in Missâ offertur verum Christi Corpus verus ejusdem Sanguis Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis defunctis 4. Item Quod Petro Apostolo ejus legitimis Successoribus in Sede Apostolicâ tanquam Christi vicario data est suprema potestas pascendi regendi ecclesiam Christi militantem fratres suos confirmandi 5. Item Quod authoritas tractandi definiendi de iis quae spectant ad fidem Sacramenta disciplinam ecclesiasticam hactenus semper spectavit spectare debet tantum ad Pastores ecclesiae quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc in ecclesiâ Dei posuit non ad Laicos In which Article penned with some tender sense of the invasion which formerly in King Henry and King Edward's days had been made upon the Clergy-rights both the Regal and Parliamentary power being excluded totally by a tantum ad Pastores not only a definiendo but a tractando not only quae ad fidem but quae ad disciplinam ecclesiasticam spectant I suppose made the University so cautious to subscribe thereto Quam nostram assertionem affirmationem fidem nos inferior Clerus praedistus vestris Paternitatibus tenore praesentium exhibemus humiliter supplicantes ut quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam intentionem aliter illis quorum in hac parte interest notificandi Vos qui Patres estis ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis Quâ in re officium charitatis ac pietatis ut arbitramur praestabitis saluti gregis vestri ut par est prospicietis vestras ipsi animas liberabitis § 176 These were the last words and testament as it were of the ancient Clergy now expiring seeing their definitive authority assumed by the Laity and upon this a flood of innovations coming upon them Which Protestation of theirs remaineth upon record to all generations to shew that in the Reformation the Laity deserted their former Guides and Spiritual Fathers the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's and Queen Mary's days all constant to the ancient Church-doctrines saving only Supremacy for King Henry's time and also in King Edward's days the major part of this Clergy tho externally guilty of some dissimulation yet inwardly retaining the same judgment as may be seen by what is acknowledged above § 122. c. and 127. § 177 This Declaration of the Clergy and Universities was ended in the Queens proposal of a Disputation in Westminster Church A Disputation between the Bishops and the reformed Divines between some of the Bishops and others of Queen Mary's Clergy and some of the reformed Divines lately returned home from beyond Sea Of which Disputation the Lord Keeper Bacon one of the Protestant Religion was appointed the Moderator The three Questions which were proposed by the reforming party to the Bishops to be the subject of the Conference were these 1. It is against the word of God and the Custome of the ancient Church to use a tongue unknown to the people in Common-Prayer Fox p. 1924. and the administration of the Sacraments 2. Every Church hath authority to appoint take away and change Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Rites so the same be to edification 3. It cannot be proved by the word of God that there is in the Mass offered up a Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead Of which questions to pass by the first there being nothing either in the former Convocation-Articles or in any decree of former Church against the lawfulness of having the Divine Service in a known tongue which is all that the Reformation desires in this matter and which could be no occasion of difference among Christians were all other Controversies of Doctrine well composed In the second Question it seems to me somewhat strange that whereas the Convocation speaks chiefly of the authority of defining points de fide and contends that the authority of defining such points belongs not to the Laity or to any Civil Power but only ad Pastores and whereas also the main of the Reformation consists in altering such Doctrines belonging to Faith and not in altering some Rites and Ceremonies yet the question here stretcheth no further than to Rites and Ceremonies and then speaks of these as alterable not by the Laity or a Civil Power but by a particular Church i. e. as I suppose by the Clergy thereof And then leaves us in the dark also whether this particular Church be put here as contradistinct only to other particular Churches on which it is independent and hath this power granted to it by all or be put as contradistinct to the Church Vniversal or to Superior Councils on which surely it hath some dependance Again in the last question it seems as strange that whereas the Convocation in their Preface founds this Article together with the rest on Primitive and Apostolical Tradition as well as on Scripture Publico christianarum gentium consensu c. atque ab Apostolis ad not usque c. And whereas the reformed in the first question where seemed some advantage add the custome of ancient Church to the testimony of the Scriptures and in their Preface promise adherence to the Doctrines and Practice of the Catholick Church unless there be some evasion in the limitation there used Fox p. 1930. where they say by Catholick Church they mean that Church which ought to be sought in the holy Scriptures and which is governed and led by the Spirit of Christ Yet here they use that restraining Clause it cannot by the word of God be proved the judgment of the ancient Church the authoritative expounder of the word of God being indeed in this matter very clear against them See Discourse of Eucharist § 92.111 c. § 178 If you would know what end this Disputation had it is thus set down in Cambden Hist. Eliz. An. Dom. 1559. That all came to nothing for that after a few words passed to and fro in writing they could not agree about the manner of disputing The Protestants triumphing as if they had gotten the victory and the Papists complaining that they were hardly dealt withal in that they were not forewarned of the questions above a day or two before and that Lord Keeper Bacon a man little versed in matters of Divinity and a bitter enemy of the Papists sate as Judge whereas he was only appointed as Moderator or keeper of Order But the very truth is that they weighing the matter more seriously durst not without consulting the Bishop of Rome call in question so great matters and not controverted in the Church of Rome exclaiming every where When shall there be any certainry touching Faith Disputations concerning Religion do always bend that way as the Scepters incline and such like And so hot were the Bishops of Lincolne and Winchester that they thought meet that the Queen and the Authors of this falling away from the Church of Rome should be stricken with the censure of Excommunication But
Power within his Dominions may upon any pretence of Religion or other whatsoever either take up himself or licence any others to take up the Civil Sword against the King or make any resistance to him therewith in order to any person or cause whatsoever Which thing sufficiently secures his government and the peace of his Kingdome § 182 2. Again as to the second part of the Oath thus much shall be freely conceded That there is some Supremacy in or dine ad Spiritualia to which no Forreign State or Prelate may lay claim As besides that which is named already to belong only to the Civil Magistrate it shall here be granted as being the opinion of several Catholicks That no General Council hath any authority to make any Ecclesiastical Law which any way entrencheth upon any Civil Right Nor any forreign Prelate hath authority to use a Temporal power over Princes when judged heretical to kill or depose them or absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance Were therefore these words of the Oath understood only of such a Forreign power which opposeth the security of the Queens Civil Government as Dr. Hammond urgeth Schism 7. c. § 17. Or which layeth intolerable burthens and exactions upon the Subjects of the Land i. e. as to temporal matters and which draws after it Positions and Doctrines to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince's Crown and Dignity to the exemption of all Ecclesiastical persons such as makes them but half-Subjects to the deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdomes as Dr. Fern urgeth Examin Champ. 9. c. p. 279 it shall be granted here without disputing any such controversy that the Oath for such thing as this could not be justly refused But after these Concessions now to review the two parts of the Oath again §. 183. n. 1. How far not to see what more might lye in them 1. For the First There is a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Civil Magistrate cannot justly claim viz. Such Supremacies as these that a Prince may when a Superior Council abroad or the major part of his Clergy at home hath or doth determine against something which he with some few or a lesser part of his Clergy is perswaded to be consonant to the word of God may I say suppress and forbid the Doctrine of those and establish and promulgate the Doctrine of these may thus make and publish new Ecclesiastical Articles or Canons and correct suspend or dispense with former and that where no just pretence of their violating any way his Civil Government That he without any Synodal consent of his Clergy or He with it against the decrees of Superior Councils may change the publick Church Liturgies her Service or Discipline and that when these no way hurtful to the Civil State That the Clergy may not assemble about Spiritual concernments which none deny that they may do even under Heathen Princes but when he pleaseth to call them may teach or promulgate no Ecclesiastical Decisions in matter of Doctrine or Constitutions in matter of Discipline to their flocks being his Subjects unless he first give his consent unto them tho these concern no civil right That he may introduce into Bishopricks whom he approves without the consent of a major part of the present Episcopacy or may displace any or prohibite the function of their office within his Dominions without any concurrence of the Clergy and where is no just pretence of danger to his Secular Government Briefly to use Bishops Carleton's words cited before That he may use any such Spiritual Jurisdiction § 3 as stands in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offenders Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures All or most of which Supremacies are not Supremacies belonging to the Prince but to the Clergy to Prelates to Councils and Synods Provincial National or higher As hath been laid down in the first and second These See before sect 2.4 and as will appear to any one at the first sight if he will but empty his fancy a little of the prime Patriarch of the Catholick Church his being Anti-Christ and of an erroneous and Superstitious Hierarchy and on the other side of an orthodox and godly Jesias-Prince and seriously consider what a mischief it will bring upon a National Church when the supreme Secular Magistrate thereof is an Heretick or Schismatick and invested with the above-named Supremacies in Spiritual Affairs Nay I may further add to these that there is some Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Protestants themselves or the most Learned of them do not allow to the Prince as this That the Prince alone without the consent of some of his Clergy may make or impose upon his Subjects Ecclesiastical Laws or decide such Controversies And secondly there is another Supremacy which all the Presbyterian Protestants do not allow to the Prince namely that he may prohibite the Church Ministery and Officers from making or imposing any Ecclesiastical Law without his licence and consent first obtained thereto as you may see below § 211. Meanwhile how both these do safely take this Oath there being neither of these limitations by the Oath-imposer mentioned either in it or elsewhere with reference to it nay the contrary being declared concerning the later of these two Supremacies I see not unless the Oath-taker may qualify his Oath according to his own sense To require therefore submission by Oath to such Supremacies of the Civil Magistrate as these now named is not lawful § 184 And that such submission was required from these Bishops is evident I think That submission to the Royal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops 1. Both from that Supremacy which the Queen at that very time in these very things exercised without any Synodal consent against former Synods a Specimen of which you may see below § 201. in Her Majesties Commission to the Uncanonical Ordainers of Arch-bishop Parker and to the same purpose in Stat. 8. Eliz. 1. and which the Kings Henry and Edward had formerly exercised 2. And from that Supremacy which the Parliaments granted and acknowledged due in these things to the Prince as hath been shewed I think sufficiently in this former discourse they granting to the King all that authority and jurisdiction which any Spiritual person or persons had formerly excepting only the authority of ministery of divine offices in the Church See before § 71. All which authority formerly thus granted by the laws and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the taker of this Oath is bound to assist and defend The like to which see also in the 1. and 2. Canon Ecclesiast 1603. Altho the former Clergy under Henry the Eighth had never annexed these Supremacies to the Crown See before § 25 or if they had had again under Queen Mary reversed it Neither is it enough for our men for the setling of
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
the Court of Parliament where they shall be view'd verified publish'd and registred with such Modifications as that Court shall think fit for the good of the Realm and all processes shall proceed according to such restrictions and no otherwise In these two Liberties we find the Autority of the French King farther extended and the Papal power more limited then our Author can be contented the Regal Jurisdiction should be enlarg'd and the Patriarchal confined by the Reformed What power the most Christian King claims in confirming Canons we may learn from Petrus de Marca * De Conc. l 6. c. 34. par 2. Nunquam discedere oportet ab hac certissima Regula deliberationes Ecclesiae Gallicanae considerari non posse aliter quam velut consilium Regi datum easque executioni non posse mandari absque consensu confirmatione ejus who lays it down for a Rule which never fails That the deliberations of the Gallican Church can be look'd upon no otherwise then as Counsel given to the King and that they cannot be put in execution without his consent and confirmation And he there saith that the King may praeside in Councils as * Tanquam caput comme Chef Ibid. Head * An ex co quod Suprema Canonum protectio ad Regem pertinet sequatur eum jubere posse ut observentur non expectata etiam sententia Ecclesiae Gallicanae And in another place proposing to himself this Quaestion * Certum quidem est earum constitutionum obseruationum fore sanctiorem si conderentur cum generali Cleri consensu quoniam unusquisque eam rem obtinere modis omnibus cupit quam ipse suo judicio comprobaverit Nihilominus aeque certum est Regem ex sententia Concilii sui quod auget aut minuit prout ei lubet posse latis edictis decernere ut Canones observentur ac circum stantias modos necessarios addere ad faciliorem eorum executionem sive etiam ad veram eorum mentem explicandam eosque accommodare ad utilitatem Regni lib. 6. c. 36. par 1. Whether since the supreme protection of the Canons doth belong to the King it thence follows that He can command that they be observ'd without expecting the sentence of the Gallican Church He answers * that it is indeed certain that the Observation of them will be the more sacred if they be made with the Universal consent of the Clergy because every one desires that that should take place which he himself approves of But then that it is aequally certain that the King with the advice of his Council may by his Edicts decree that the Canons be observ'd and may add such Modes and Circumstances as are necessary for the better Execution of them and accommodate them to the Interest of the State This Autority he confirms from the Examples of the first Christian Emperors and the former French Kings and adds expresly * Utuntur adhuc eo jure Reges Christianissimi Ib par 3. That the most Christian Kings still use that right And now methinks the revising of the Canons by the Kings of England especially when humbly besought to do it by the Clergy should not be an Invasion of the Churches rights when the French Kings even without such Interposition of the Church exercise the same Right and yet do according to our Author leave to the management of the Clergy all power in Spirituals I might here insist upon Collation of Benefices which the French Kings challenge by right of the Regale but I shall choose rather to mention the assembling of Councils because a French King in the last Century seems to have doubted whether his Clergy might convene without his consent as appears from that bold Speech of his Embassadour in the Council of Trent which because it gives us some insight into the freeness of that Synod I shall beg leave to transcribe the latter part of it from Goldastus * Collect. Constitut Imperial T. 3. p. 373 Pii quarti imperium detractamus quaecunque sint ejus judicia sententiae rejicimus respuimus contemnimus Et quanquam Patres Sanctissimi vestra omnium Religio Vita eruditio magnae apud Nos semper fuerit erit Autoritatis cum tamen nihil à vobis sed omnia magis Romae quam Tridenti agantur quae hic publicantur magis Pii Quarti placita quam Concilii Tridentini decreta jure aestimentur denunciamus protestamur quaecunque in hoc conventu hoc est solo Pii nutu voluntate decernuntur publicantur ea neque Regem Christianissimum probaturum neque Ecclesiam Gallicanam pro decreto Oecumenici Concilii habituram Interea quotquot estis Galliae Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Doctores Theologi Vos omnes hinc abire Rex Christianissimus jubet redituros ut primum Deus Optimus Maximus Ecclesiae Catholicae in Generalibus Conciliis antiquam formam libertatem restituerit Regi autem Christianissimo suam dignitatem Majestatem We refuse to be subject to the Command of Pius the 4th All his judgments and decrees we refuse reject and contemn and although most Holy Fathers Your Religion Life and Learning was ever and ever shall be of great Autority with Us Yet seeing You do nothing but all things are manag'd rather at Rome then at Trent and the things that are here publish'd are rather the Placita of Pius the 4th then the Decrees of the Council of Trent We denounce and protest here before You all that whatsoever things are decree'd in this Assembly by the will and pleasure of Pius neither the Most Christian King will ever approve nor the French Church ever acknowledge for the Decrees of an Oecumenical Council In the mean time the Most Christian King commands all you his Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots Doctors and Divines to depart hence then to return when it shall please God to restore to his Catholick Church the ancient methods and liberty of General Councils and to the Most Christian King his Honour and Dignity Now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether any Reformed States ever assumed to themselves greater Autority over the Ecclesiasticks then this R. Catholick Prince or Whether ever any Protestant exprest himself with greater warmth concerning this Council then that Protesting Embassador It might be easie to shew how much power the Venetian Republick exercises in Spirituals had not this been done so lately by another Pen. But what hath been said may suffice to evince that this Epistolographer impos'd upon the credulity of his Sir when he told him that he knew of no Ecclesiastical powers denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed State do forego to exercise But our Discourser perhaps presum'd his Friend a Stranger to sorreign affairs and therefore thought he might the more securely use a Latitude in his treating of those
'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-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
have effected a Reformation but could not for which we are bid to see Antiq. Britann p. 339. But he who would see any such thing there must borrow our Author's Spectacles χ Urges that it makes no real difference whether a Reformation begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Prince be by him established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince mov'd by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole Body of the Clergy be by them generally receiv'd and put in practice according to the command of Sovereign Autority The Answer is § 130 that the King did not propose a Reformation to the Clergy by them to be consulted of and upon their Assent or denial to be establish'd or laid aside which would have been lawful but by them to be obey'd as impos'd by the King which He thinks unwarrantable But to this it may be replied from what has before been urg'd that the matter of the Command being lawful not to say necessary the Autority of the Prince is Obligatory and that the conformity of the Bishops is an Evidence that the matter was by them judg'd lawful In λ it is urg'd that the first Form of Common-prayer and Administration of Sacraments in the 2d. Year and 2d. Parliament of King Edward's reign had the approbation and consent of the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation To this it is offer'd by way of Answer That no other Act of Reformation before the 5th of King Edward had the consent of Convocation § 126 But neither is this true nor doth it prove that therefore this Liturgy had not That it was confirm'd by Act of Parliament before it had this consent But granting this had it therefore not the consent of Convocation But how doth he prove that the Act of Parliament preceded the Decree of the Synod Because the Act of Parliament doth not mention the consent of Convocation Negative Arguments he knows do not conclude and it is positively said in the a For. p. 1303. Letter of the Council to Bishop Bonner that this Liturgy not only had the Assent but was set forth with the Assent of the Clergy in Convocation Our Author himself when he has forgot the debate here § 146 will tell us that the Liturgy was at the same time authoriz'd by Act of Parliament and consented to by Convocation But it is said the Second Liturgy was sent to the Clergy autoritate Regis Parliamenti Ergo the first Liturgy had not the consent of Convocation But a motive to this consent might be fear of punishment Yet the a Bur. V. 2. p. 101. Convocation which gave this consent acknowledg'd to King Edward the quietness they enjoy'd under him having no let nor impediment in the Service of God But the with-drawing of a few Clergy especially if prime leaders and introducing new Votes of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting in six new ones may render that which before was a major part now a lesser and consequently the Act of this major part invalid This putting of cases is very impertinent here for when the consent of Convocation was given to the Liturgy not one old Bishop was depriv'd For the Letter to Bonner before mention'd which mentions this Assent of Convocation to the Liturgy is directed to him then Bishop of London who yet was the first of the Bishops depriv'd This Liturgy he saith rather omitted then gainsaid the former Church-tenents and practice This is urg'd by way of Apology for the Convocation's consenting but whether the Liturgy omitted or gainsaid the Church-practise it was one main branch of the Reformation and it is not denied that it had the Vote of a Synod The errors reform'd were such as corrupted either the Worship or Doctrine that the Reformation of Worship had the Autority of a Synod is after much shuffling granted Whether the Articles which were the Reformation of Doctrine were not confirm'd by the same Autority is to be examin'd § 134 This μ with good reason affirms the Replier defers the dispute Whether the Articles were the Act of the Synod and upon Supposition that they were Answers that the Clergy were now much chang'd many old Bishops displac'd new ones introduc'd many absented from Synod others dissembled All this is said upon our Author 's bare credit which by this time may not be altogether unexceptionable Only five Bishops have been prov'd to be ejected two of these Heath and Day in the same Year wherein these Articles were past and their Deprivation plac'd in History after the passing of the Articles the Bishoprick of Durham was not yet dissolv'd only two New Voters therefore Ridley and Poinet introduced by the Ejection of the old Bonner and Gardiner and those old not prov'd to have been unlawfully ejected § 135 What is said in ν is not denied in the Answet to ν but something said which must wait for a Reply till Church-Government Part the 4th has overtook the 5th A Reply to Chapters the 9th and 10th § 136 OUr Author having describ'd the general way of King Edward's Reformation proceeds to particulars His description of the general has prov'd very Poetical the particulars are most of them serv'd up the second time and very little alter'd in the dressing § 136 By Virtue of such Supremacy he sent Articles to the Bishop of Winchester to subscribe But these Articles were sent once before in the 45th Paragraph and needed not have been sent again here since the Bishop a Fox p. 1350.1357 subscrib'd all but that which contain'd an acknowledgment of his fault at the first sending § 137 By Virtue of such Supremacy the six Articles were repeal'd without a Synod The repealing of an Act of Parliament is not I suppose the business of the Convocation King Henry's Parliament had affix'd severe Penalties on the Violators of the Six Articles these King Edward's Parliament took off Nothing therefore was repeal'd by the Civil power but it 's own Act. But neither is it true that none of these Articles were revok'd by Synod For the b Bur. V. 2. p. 50. Convocation that sat with this Parliament declar'd for Communion in both kinds and Marriage of Priests contrary to two of those Articles Had not the Registers of this and other Synods been c Ibid. lost I doubt not but we could have prov'd most Acts of the Reformation Synodical § 138 By Virtue of such Supremacy he justified the power us'd by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses That is He did not throw up his right to them This power was justified by Gardiner and Bonner and others whom our Author must own for Catholics This Power was justified by Q. Mary's Parliaments who would not part with their Lands as they did with their Heresy This power is still justifiable by the Romanists or else a late d Nath. Johnson Author deceivs
the King and Parliament ordain'd that such Laws which prohibited Marriage to any Spiritual Persons who by Gods Law might Marry should be of none effect The Convocation had declar'd the Marriage of Priests lawfull by the Law of God the State found the Prohibition tended to the detriment of the Republic and therefore had they had no other reason might according to our Author 's own principles take it off § 166 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King published 42 Articles of Religion said to be agreed on in a Synod of the Clergy held at London If these Articles were the legitimate Act of the Synod then they were not the effects of mere Regal Supremacy and that they were so will I doubt not appear notwithstanding all his cavils If any one should question whether the Iliads and Aeneids were the genuine works of Homer and Virgil the Title they carry and the Universal Tradition which assigns them to these Authors would be thought a sufficient Vindication of them This Author builds part of his Faith on the second Nicene Council and opposes it's Decree in favour of Image-Worship to the second Commandment forbidding it If I should ask him how he knew such a Decree to be genuine he would not I believe produce the Records but think it a good Reply that it is found amongst those Acts which bear the Name of that Council and which the Church has allways accepted as such These Articles are published with the Title of the Synod this publication was Anno 1553 the next Year to that in which we say they were past in Convocation the Church for the first 5 years of Queen Elizabeth retain'd these Articles as her Doctrine the Convocation in that Queen's time reestablish'd them with very little Alteration they have been appeal'd to ever since by our Writers as the Acts of that Synod they have been own'd by our Adversaries as such and if so general a Tradition of a thing so notorious and so lately done may not be admitted the Church of Rome is built upon a weak Foundation But all this notwithstanding this Author thinks he has good Reason to deny that these Articles were establish'd by that Synod First he transcribes what Mr. Fuller saith of this Convocation which I shall not hear copy because the Author has here once for all dealt ingenuously Mr. Fuller saith the Records of this Convocation are but one degree above blanks and to the same purpose Dr. Heylin But neither of these Historians had seen Q Mary's Commission for razing the Records else they could have given us an account why these Registers are so bare Dr. Heylin a Heylin's History p. 121. found left upon Record in that Convocation a Memorandum concerning the Dissolution of the Bishoprick of Westminster and it is not improbable that these Articles were expung'd by some Persons who yet were willing that the Dissolution of a Bishoprick which they thought might cast an odium upon the Reformation might remain upon Record As for Fuller's Assertion that the Convocation had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business it is only a conjecture which he makes from the silence of the Records Fuller's Discourse of the Catechism doth not at all affect the Articles unless it be prov'd that by Catechism must be understood Articles which our Author endeavours to perswade his unwary Reader For this purpose he next presents us with a Relation from Fox concerning the questioning of a Catechism in the 1st Synod of Q. Mary but here he is himself again as will appear to the Reader if he compares this Relation with Fox's He concludes this Story with this Epiphonema This concerning the questioning of the Catechism and Articles whereas in the Relation nothing is said of the Articles but the Catechism only To clear this point a little farther He finds in Fox Arch-Bishop Cranmer charg'd amongst other things with being Author of the Catechism and Articles and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them Here again he shuffles Arch-Bishop Cranmer is not there charg'd for compelling Men to subscribe the Catechism but the Articles as appears from Fox's relation as it is transcrib'd even by himself but he makes the Catechism subscrib'd that it may look like a Synonymous term to Articles Arch-Bishop Cranmer answer'd to that charge that he exhorted such as were willing to subscribe but compell'd none against their wills Now where this Exhortation and Subscription was unless in Synod will not easily be answered Having given us these three relations he next proceeds to make reflections on them First he excepts against the words in the Title of the Articles de quibus inter Episcopos alios eruditos Viros c. that they seem not the ordinary expression of a Synodal Act which runs more generally as thus de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clerum universum or the like This which he calls an ordinary expression will scarce be found in the Title of any Synodal Act before Q. Elizabeth These Articles are by him confest to have been subscrib'd by part of the Synod Cranmer who drew up the Articles and procur'd Subscriptions to them must himself be a Subscriber probably also Holgate Arch-Bishop of York who was a Reformer Archiepiscopal Autority therefore might have been mention'd had they been the Act of only a part of the Synod and therefore that it is not explicitly mention'd for it is implied in the Episcopal can be no argument that they were the Act of a part only But the other words in the Title ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae Religionis firmandum shew they must have been the Act of the whole Synod since the Opinion of a part could not be effectual to such an End Next he observes that tho' the Prolocutor in the Synod 10 Mariae questions and Philpot answers concerning the Catechism yet they speak not of the Catechism but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of the Catechism and bound up with it which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechism and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation and so also calls them the Catechism because the first Title of this Book is Catechismus brevis c. In this Period we have as much crude unconcocted reasoning as would have furnish'd an ordinary Writer for some Pages Weston ill deserv'd the Office of Prolocutor if speaking of a Catechism he meant not that but the Articles which are two as distinct things as can well be imagin'd The Articles a They are so bound up together in the public Library were indeed bound up with the Catechism but have a new Title-page and are as distinct from it as the Discourse of Caelibacy is from the Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther Now had the Answerer to the Considerations on Martin Luther entitl'd his Book an Answer to the Discourse of Caelebacy or should
agree that the Bishop shall practice exercise or have any manner of Authority Jurisdiction or Power within this Realm but shall resist the same at all times to the uttermost of my power And I from henceforth will accept repute and take the Kings Majesty to be the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England And to my Wit and uttermost of my Power I will observe and defend the whole Effects and Contents of all and singular Acts and Statutes made and to be made within this Realm in derogation extirpation and extinguishing of the Bishop of Rome and his Authority and all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made in Confirmation and Corroboration of the Kings Power of the Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England c. Here is the Clergy tied to swear as to all Acts of the Civil Power already past so indefinitely and beforehand to all also that are to come which may derogate any thing from the Popes power or add to the Kings in Spiritual matters as if no bounds or limits at all were due thereto § 43 Again in the Sixth Year of King Edward the whole Synod of the Clergy if we may credit the relation of Mr. Philpot See Fox p. 1282. in the Convocation 1. Mariae did grant Authority to certain persons to be appointed not by them but by the Kings Majesty to make Ecclesiastical Laws where it seems to me somewhat strange that the Synod should now de novo give to the King what was before assumed as his Right And accordingly a Catechisme bearing the name of the Synod was set forth by those persons nominated by the King without the Synods revising or knowing what was in it tho a Catechisme said Dr. Weston the Prolocutor 1. Mariae full of Heresies This Book being then produced in Convocation and denied by the Synod to be any Act of theirs Philpot urged it was because the Synodal Authority saith he was committed to certain persons to be appointed by the Kings Majesty to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary Which Argumentation of Philpots seems to be approved by Dr. Fern in Consid upon the Reform 2. chap. 9. sect Here then the Synod grants Authority in Spiritual matters that they know not who shall in their name establish that which they please without the Synods knowing either what Laws shall be made or who shall make them which is against the First and Second Thesis and is far from adding any just authority to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of those times or to any Acts which are thus only called Synodal because the Synod hath in general given away their Power to those who make them afterward as themselves think fit Whereas to make an Act lawfully Synodical the Consent of the Clergy must be had not to nominate in a Trust which Christ hath only committed to themselves in general another Law-giver viz. the King or his Commissioners for thus King Edward will choose Cranmer and Ridley and Queen Mary will choose Gardiner and Bonner to prescribe Laws for the Church but to know approve and ratify in particular every such Law before it can be valid § 44 Besides these Acts of Parliament and Synod the manner of Supremacy then ascribed to the Prince yet further appears in the Imprisonment of Bishop Bonner in the First year of King Edward for making such an hypothetical Submission as this to the Kings Injunctions and Homilies then by certain Commissioners sent unto him I do receive these Injunctions and Homilies See Fox p. 1192. with this Protestation that I will observe them if they be not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and the Statute and Ordinance of the Church the fault imputed here to him I suppose being that he refused to obey any Injunctions of the King when repugnant to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church for which Fox calls this Protestation Popish But the manner of this Supremacy appears yet more specially in the several Articles proposed to be subscribed by Bishop Gardiner § 45. n 1. upon his refusing to execute or submit to divers particular Injunctions of King Edward in Spiritual matters imposed upon the Clergy the Subscription required of him was To the Book of Homilies affirmed to contain only godly and wholsome Doctrine and such as ought by all to be embraced To new Forms of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and to the denyal of Real Presence or of Transubstantiation if any thing in that Form may may be said to oppose either of these To the new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests To the disannulling and abolition of the former Church Liturgy and Canon of the Mass and of the Litanies to Saints and Rituals of the Church To the abolition of Sacred Images and Sacred Relicks To the permission of Marriage to the Clergy To the acknowledging that the Statute of the Six Articles was by Authority of Parliament justly repealed and dis-annulled To the acknowledging that the appointment of Holy-days and Fasting-days as Lent and Ember-days and the dispensing therewith is in the Kings Majesty's Authority and Power as Supreme Head of the Church of England To the acknowledging that Monastick Vows were Superstitious and the Religious upon the dissolution of their Monasteries lawfully freed from them as likewise that the suppressing and dissolution of Monasteries and Convents by the King was done justly and out of good reason and ground For all which see the Copy of the Second and of the Last Articles sent to Bishop Gardiner in Fox p. 1234 and 1235. In which Articles the Kings Supremacy is thus expressed in the Second of the First Articles sent to him That his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church of England hath full Power and Authority to make and set forth Laws Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion and Orders in the said Church for repressing of all Errors and Heresies and other enormities and abuses so that the same alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scripture and Law of God as is said in the Sixth of the Second Articles sent to this Bishop Now how far this repressing and reforming of Errors c. claimed by the King did extend we may see in those points but now named In the Fifth That all Subjects who disobey any his said Majesties Laws Injunctions Ordinances in such matters already set forth and published or hereafter to be set forth and published ought worthily to be punished according to his Ecclesiastical Law used within this his Realm Again in the 7.11 12.14.16 of the Third Articles sent to the same Bishop That the former Liturgies of the Church Mass-Books c that the Canons forbidding Priests Marriage c are justly taken away and abolish'd and the new Forms of Common-Prayer and of Consecration of Bishops and Priests are justly established by Authority of Parliament and by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm and therefore ought to be received
and approved of all the faithful Ministers of Gods word Where note That tho in some of these Articles §. 45. n. 2. the Authority of Parliament is mentioned yet in none of these is any thing said of the consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Regal or Parliamentary Injunctions in Ecclesiastical matters valid From which may be collected That when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mentioned as sometimes it is See the Letter of the King and Council to Bishop Bonner Fox p. 1186 and the Kings Message to the Rebels of Cornwal Fox p. 1189 it is not to add any Authority to those Injunctions thereby which Injunctions were imposed on the Clergy before any Synodal consent of the Clergy was either given or asked but to propose the judgment and example of the Clergy consenting as a motive to render others that stand out conformable as whose judgment they ought to reverence and whose example they ought to follow not as whose Decree and Constitution they ought to obey And if you wonder why the King and Parliament of those days never pleaded this last as you shall never find it pleaded by them the reason I conjecture was besides that they were conscious of some changes made by them of these Ecclesiastical Judges displacing those who would not conform to their Inclinations which rendred them not so authentical because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force by vertue of their Office or any Commission from Christ but that so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were Superior to the English Clergy and which were contrary to the Laws of this National Synod and so would void and make them of none effect And if the King by vertue of his Supremacy urged his and his Subjects freedome from the former Laws and Constitutions of the Church Vniversal so must he from the present Laws of his own Church National He and his Subjects being tied in no more Duty to the one than to the other nor in so much § 46 If you would know how Bishop Gardiner behaved himself in this Tryal it was with great perplexity and distraction as neither knowing now how safely to recal and recant that Supremacy of the King in Spirituals which he had formerly acknowledged and sworn to nor how in that Duty which he owed to the Church to obey those particular Injunctions which the King imposed upon him by vertue of this Supremacy acknowledged by him and so he incurred for this latter deprivation and imprisonment And perhaps it may be thought a just judgment from God that he should be thus ensnared and undone by that sense of Supremacy of which he had been in Henry the Eighth's days both at home and abroad See §. 37. as you have heard from Calvin so zealous an Abettor § 47 I will conclude these Evidences under Edward the Sixth with what is said in Antiquit. Brittannic p. 339. which quotes for it the Archives touching the resentment of their lost Synodal Authority which some of the Clergy shewed in a Synod called by Arch-Bishop Cranmer in the First Year of King Edward's Reign for the furthering of a Reformation tho he could effect nothing therein In which Synod the Clergy now too late perceiving that not only the Pope but themselves had lost their former Ecclesiastical Power and that the King and Parliament ordered Spiritual Affairs as they pleased without their consents requested that at least the rest of their Convocation might be joyned with the House of Commons as the Bishops were with the Lords that so they might have a Vote also in passing Church matters but this request would not be granted them The Authors words are these Animadverterunt Praelati omnem vim authoritatemque Synodi non modò diminutam sed penitus fractam eversamque esse postquam Clerus in verbo Sacerdotis Henrico Regi promisisset sine authoritate Regiâ in Synodo se nihil decreturos or indeed that the King might decree what he pleased without the Authority of the Synod for such a Supremacy was either granted to or assumed by the King Quâ Ecclesiasticarum rerum potestate abdicatâ Populus in Parliamento caepit de rebus divinis inconsulto Clero sancire tum absentis cleri privilegia immunitates sensim detrahere juraque duriora quibus Clerus invitus teneretur constituere Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est Proinde petierunt ut in Concilio inferiori Praelati Clerique procuratores cum populo permixti de Republicâ Ecclesiâ unà consulant c. Thus that Author And you may see also the Petition it self lately Printed out of a Manuscript of Arch-Bishop Cranmers by Mr. Stillingfleet Irenicum 2. Part 8. c. Where seeking too late to recover their former Steerage in Ecclesiastical Affairs now transacted in the Court of Parliament the Lower House of Convocation prefers these Requests That Whereas in a Stat. 25. Hen. 8. the Clergy had promised in Verbo Sacerdotii never from thenceforth to Enact c any new Canons Constitutions c unless the Kings Assent and Licence may to them be had c therefore they desire that the Kings Majesties Licence may be for them obtained authorizing them to attempt and commune of such matters and therein freely to give their consent which otherwise they may not do upon pain and peril premised That either the Clergy of the Lower House of the Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the Lower House of Parliament or else that all such Statutes as shall be made concerning matters of Religion may not pass without the sight and assent of the said Clergy or as it runs in the Second Petition the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto and their Answers and Reasons not heard That since the former were annulled Ecclesiastical Laws may be established in the Realm by Thirty Two persons or so many as shall please the King to appoint c. That all Judges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril That whereas they were informed that certain Prelates and other Learned Men were appointed to alter the Service in the Church and did make certain Books c the said Books may be seen and perused by them for a better expedition of Divine Service c. That such matters as concern Religion which be disputable may be reasoned and disputed amongst them in this House whereby the Verity of such matters shall the better appear c. Thus laboured then the poor Clergy to obtain a joint share at least with the Parliament and civil State in transacting the Affairs of the Church And Dr. Heylin in Reform Justified § 4. p. 21. grants thus much That the Censures of the Church were grown weak if not invalid and consequently by degrees became neglected ever after that King Henry the Eighth took the Headship on him and exercised the same by
of several times justified and condemn'd the same thing I am very well convinc'd tho' not from our Author's proof that the Pope stood not alone in his judgment For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion The Pope judg'd for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph when the Dispensation was procur'd from him but here in the 19th he judges against it But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles then his Passions or Interest And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when telling us in the same Page that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinc'd of the Unlawfulness of it but because at the same time he stood much in aw of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine He needed not therefore to have instanc'd in the different Opinions of diverse Men since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinc'd us that the several Interests of several times justifi'd and condemn'd the same thing Now to return to our Matter in hand So that it seems he has digress'd for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to shew that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses The aforesaid Summ of 100000 l spent upon the Vniversities abroad c. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie and I need say no worse of it § 20 The King he saith excepted at the Limitation of Quantum per legem Christi licet in the Title given him by the Clergy and so at last upon renew'd threats this Clause also was procur'd to be omitted See Antiquit. Britannic The Author knew or might have known that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken For Dr. Burnet a Hist V. 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observ'd that King Henry when the Province of York demurr'd upon granting the King the Title of Head as improper in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ Accordingly it is represented as pass'd with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif § 2. Historians He refers us again to Dr. Bailie But the Reader I presume has had enough of him already The excluding the Patriarch is he saith contrary to his 4th Thesis It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope They could find no grounds for the Papal Autority from Scripture Antiquity or Reason but they might perhaps have been convinc'd from our Author's Theses which are an Autority distinct to all those This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon it is because I would not gall him too much Cranmer is said to have divorc'd the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Autority out of his Dominions § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compar'd with p. 144. was pronounc'd in May 1533 and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following Cranmer in the Sentence is call'd Legate of the Apostolic See By this Instance it is plain how implicitely our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology as well as History Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat saith Sanders This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first propos'd c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declar'd it was contrary to the Law of God He induc'd d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it f Ibid. p. 38. He subscrib'd and perswaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it He earnestly prest Fisher to concurr and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops These are some of the favours which Warham shew'd to the Queen's Cause § 23 The Clergy having declar'd the King Supreme Head of the Church it seem'd reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head This is a wild and senseless Calumny the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Autority her Charter she derives immediately from Christ The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave but the execution of which they abridg themselves is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject and therefore necessarily requir'd the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power He cites from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner and allow'd by the Convocation to a Parliamentary Remonstrance But either my a Reform Just in the Historical Tracts Edit Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin or which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations this Author deceives me The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be review'd by 32 Commissioners § 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weigh'd by Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation and it is one of our Author 's pertinent remarks that they did not meddle with what was not reform'd The Reformation of the Canons was a design of which Nothing worse can be said than that it did not take effect If it trouble him that Canons contrary to the King's Prerogative Laws of the Land good of the Subject and Laws of God should be reform'd no Honest man can pity him If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers that has been spoke to by the b Animadv p. 36. Animadverter If by Canons Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation it is out of his wonted pride to outface the Statutes For the c Forasmuch as such Canons Constitutions and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm cannot now be view'd examin'd and determin'd by the King 's Highness and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 c. Act expresly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods and had no
need to meddle with any other since We never did own the Autority of any but what were so establish'd I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph §. 25.26 because what is said there is unsaid in the 26th But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark He supposes that Gardiner retracted his acknowledgment of a Regal Supremacy for this reason because by sad experience he saw it much enlarg'd beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintain'd it just § 46 But else-where this same Author will suppose that Gardiner was ensnar'd in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's and this Sense which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure § 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarg'd In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been perform'd in this Chapter We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanc'd then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme promis'd to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent and requested that the Old ones might be Reform'd The rest of his Discourse is only flourish which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been compriz'd in fewer Words and this would have heightned our Esteem of the Author tho' it might have deprest the price of the Pamphlet A Reply to his 3d Chapter § 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament Repeal'd and not Repeal'd make no difference with him All the Expressions which seem to extend the Supremacy are invidiously rak'd together and those which limit it craftily supprest The Statutes are put upon the rack and because the Text doth not speak plain enough our Author has added his Gloss He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction but restor'd the Old nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy who certainly did not delude the King with the Complement of an empty Title The extent of this Jurisdiction annex'd to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction here ascrib'd to the Prince might have been spar'd if he had attended to an easie distinction frequently met with in our Writers They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience or External that which is practis'd in exterior Courts That proceeds by Spiritual Censures this by force and corporal Punishments That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme and from him deriv'd to Ecclesiastic Governours Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annex'd to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum tho' what is urg'd thence needs no Reply that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church § 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but the Clergy too Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign Every Government has a right to dispence with it's own Acts and nothing farther is challeng'd in that Statute No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom but from the Legislative power of the Realm and the same power which gave them life might dispense with them This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesom Acts made in King Henry's Reign but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince but his Ancient Right for some Years indeed usurp'd by the Pope but now vindicated This is the true import of that Statute which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope to whom it never rightly belonged but not from the Clergy it being expresly provided in the Act that all Licenses be granted by the Arch-Bishop or 2 Spiritual Persons In case of the Arch-Bishop's refusal the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis it ought the rather to be excus'd since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observ'd that that Thesis is contrary to it self His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law this Act I am sure whence he infers it positively asserts the King to be Supreme § 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirm'd by the Patriarch is taken away The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome otherwise cal'd the Pope to or for the office of Bishop or Arch-Bishop of this Realm But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as ow no Subjection to any Patriarch and therefore have no necessity of being confirm'd by him Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity for it supposes none The King's Presentation to a Bishoprick against which he is so warm was no new Usurpation but an ancient Right had he liv'd some Centuries before the Reformation he would have had this Grievance to complain of The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated but for the Reader 's mortification The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv p. 65. as in it The said Arch-Bishop when no Arch-Bishop had been mention'd before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period