the Case before us Deprivation is declared to be an Ecclesiastical Crime inter poenas ecclesiasticis legibus constitutas and liable to Tit. de Depr c. 1. the Punishments assigned by the Ecclesiastical Laws and thereupon it orders that a Bishop in amittendi status sui periculum venit that falls under Cap. 2. the danger of being deprived be referred to the Archbishop and two other Bishops deputed thereunto by the King qui Judicium exercebunt who shall have Power and Authority to hear and determine the said Cause And in case of Appeals it is farther decreed that they may be made from Tit. de Appel c. 11. the inferior Courts to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King quo cum fuerit causa devoluta which if once brought thither it is then to be transmitted si gravis sit causa if it be a matter of great concern to a Provincial Synod if of a less to three or four Bishops appointed thereunto to put a final End unto it a Method purely antient and primitive and if any other were practised whilst these Constitutions were framing it was certainly contrary to the Designs of the Reformers and perhaps no more justifiable than the Sacrilege the filling of Ecclesiastical Places with Lay Persons or the Bishops taking Commissions for the Exercise of their spiritual Offices was and which I think no Clergyman that at this day wears a Cassock in England will advocate for However since the designed Book was never admitted and no Review made thereof from that time to this I cannot see but what Dr. Heylin hath asserted must hold good to wit That all Hist Edw. 6. p. 19. the said Canons and Constitutions so restrained and qualified as above must still remain in force as of old they did and so we leave the Matter for the present 28. And indeed a State Deposition whatsoever noise it makes in the World or how much soever it pleases the Ears of some is but a novel and wicked Invention If Bishops saith St. Clemens be once constituted Ep. ad Cor. 1. c. 44. and approved of by the Church and it appears that they have been faithfull in their Office constant to their Ministration and for the time past well thought of for their Episcopal Qualifications 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot if such as these be laid aside but look upon it as a piece of great Injustice neither will it be a small Crime in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they continue piously and blamelesly to offer up their Oblations for us to turn them out of their Bishopricks A thing never heard of in the Church for many Centuries of Years But if at any time the Bishop became so irregular as that the Church would no longer endure him in his Office they deposed as well as deprived him and reduced the first Bishop into a Layman before they advanced the second to his See and probably upon this very account to prevent the Inconvenience to which a State-Deprivation is subject of having two Bishops pretending to one See at once Nay saith Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pallad p. 20. de Vit. Chrys if such Proceedings prevail and it once become lawfull to invade and usurp another's Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to cast out what Bps. they please for their own Interest and Humor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things will speedily run to ruine and the whole Christian World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the casting out of some and the being cast out by others be turned upside down An Arian Constantius may then deprive all the Orthodox and fill the Church with that Doctrine Mahomet may pull down the Cross and its Followers and set up the Half-moon and his Musselmen in their stead The long Parliament must not be thought to have done amiss when they cast off not some but the whole Order of Bishops nor the Usurper Cromwell the C. L. Asses that were got into their room a Matter of such fatal consequâ—nce to the Church that the divine Hosius understanding that Constantius was putting it into practice against the Bishops that would not subscribe to his Arianism and in my opinion Socinianism and Aerianism are not much better steps in on the behalf of the deprived giving the Emperour to know that it belonged not to him to exercise such an Authority over the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I beseech you says he leave off these Attemps Athan. Ep. ad solitar Vit. Edit Commet 1600. of yours and remember that though you be an Emperour you are not immortal dread the Day of Judgment and keep your self unspotted against that day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter meddle not with Ecclesiastical Affairs neither command us therein but rather take your Direction from us For God hath committed the Care of the Kingdom to you and to us the Care of his Church and as he who invades the Kingdom contradicts the divine Ordinance so be you carefull that you draw not into your Jurisdiction the things of the Church lest thereby you draw Guilt upon your self Give as it is written unto Caefar the things that belong unto Caesar and unto God the things that belong unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is neither lawfull for us to meddle in the Affairs of the Empire nor for you to meddle in the more sacred Affairs of the Church A Power certainly never designed by Christ since it is so affrontive to his Institution and so destructive to his Church However I would fain know of these Latitudinarian Statesmen who are so zealous to advance it among us 1. Whether since Christ's Kingdom is not of this World the Kingdoms of the World must have such Power in and over it as to deprive it and its Bishops of a Being and Existence in the World 2. Whether a Lay-Power purely such can operate upon Spiritual Persons in Matters purely spiritual so far at least as by their secular Laws and Sanctions to dissolve that spiritual Vnion that Christ hath made between them and their Church And whether it be not as absurd in them to attempt it and as great a Nullity in itself when effected as if the States of England should make Laws and enact Penalties for the States of Holland 3. Whether if the State hath such a Power to deprive a Bishop of his Church as they have put John upon William they may not put William upon John again and at length Jack Presbyter upon both as already they have done in Scotland 4. Whether the new made Bishops be not as much to be accounted State made as the other State deprived 5. Whether the deprived Bishops remaining Bishops of the Catholick Church as they are pleased to say they do they do not remain Bishops in and of the Church of England since that is a part of the Catholick Church 6. Whether if still Bishops in England there be not
with the Deprivations in King Edward's days in number indeed six as are ours now and so far alike but in all things else altogether unlike 40. For had they been deprived on the first day they had been enstalled Bishops no wrong had been done them nay had the King taken away their Temporalities the next moment that he gave them no complaint could have been made For if it be true what the Reforming Historian saith That they had taken out Commissions as they had done before in the former Reign to hold their Bishopricks only at the King's Burnet part 2. lib. 2. p. 6. Edit 1681. pleasure and to exercise them as his Delagates in his Name and by his Authority and of which he gives us a Copy from Bishop Bonner's wherein he acknowledges the King to be fons scaturigo the Fountain of all Jurisdiction and Power as well Ecclesiastical as Civil and that he had it only of his Bounty eique quotiens ejus Majestati videbitur libenter Coll. 14. p. 267. concedere and would deliver it up again when it should please him to call for it it is evident that when ever or by whom soever the King was pleased to call back his Commission whether faulty or not they were eo facto to be unbishop'd and no less to be removed than those State Officers and Ministers were who held their Places only durante bene placito And to me it seems much the same thing whether these his doings were founded on the Determinations of his Convocation or on the Acts of his Parliaments or whether executed by Delegates or not his Royal pleasure only was sufficient though signified by the meanest Page or Groom that belonged unto him So that if Heath of Worcester if Day of Chichester if Tonstal of Duresme and if Voisy of Exeter provided he did not resign were deprived by the Secular Delegates and not by any Court consisting of Church-Men as the Histo Part 2. lib. 1. p. 203. 216. rian asserts it was no more than what their sordid compliance and their unpriestly condescensions justly deserved Secondly 41. There was nothing enjoyned to make them Criminals but what had antecedently been ordered and determined in the Convocation before ever the Parliament annexed their Penalties themselves all the while sitting acting and enacting to both in Convocation and Parliament Hence Fox p. 1189. Edit 1610. we are told by the King's Message to the Rebels in Devonshire that what ever was contained in the new Common Prayer Book the non advancement of which seems to be their original and fundamental crime was by the Clergy agreed yea by the Bishops of the Realm devised as well as by 〈◊〉 Parliament established and more fully by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner that after great and serious Debating and long Conference of the Bishops and other grave and learned Men in the holy Scriptures one uniform Order for Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments hath been and is most godly set forth not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament and of other the learned Men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial So that here is no exception to be made against the Legality Competency or Sufficiency of the Powers subscribing all being concerned that could or any ways had right to prescribe to the Government The Clergy in their Convocations the Laity in their Parliaments the King in both all unanimously declaring for and establishing the Book Neither can any thing be objected against the Book prescrib'd It 's called by the King a Devout and Christian Book said by the Parliament to be Fox p. 1235. St. Edw. 6. concluded upon by the Holy Ghost Day of Chichester one of the deprived was one of the Composers of it all of them * Heyl. Edw. 6. p. 57. had their Votes for the establishing of it Gardiner †St. Edw. 6. 2 3. c. 1. and Bonner ‡ K. Edw. 6. Journ p. 16. promised Conformity to it and the latter of them sent out his ‖ Fox p. 1186. Precept to have it published and used Nay so universally was it comply'd with that as their Friend Sanders tells us * Fox id eodem De Schis Ang. l. 2. Ed. 1610. ne unus quidem videbatur in Regno toto qui falsorum officiorum ac rituum communione non fuisset contaminatus That there was not one throughout the whole Kingdom the Lady Mary excepted that did not receive it and joyn in Communion with it so that methinks though they could not themselves minister in the Service so prescribed yet considering the fulness regularity and competency of the Prescription they ought as Christians quietly to have acquiesced and as Bishops to have yielded their Office unto others Again 43. Though what was enjoyned was legally established though by taking out their Commissions their Deprivations were Arbitrary and at the King's courtesie though by Act of Parliament they were for their 2 3 Edw. 6. cap. 2. disobedience ipso facto to be deprived of all their Spiritual Promotions yet was not that punishment inflicted till their Case were farther debated by persons appointed thereunto by the King to whom both Church and State the one in their Convocations the other in their Parliaments Annal. Brit. vit Warbam 25 Hen. 8. c. 21. 2. 6. c. 1. had justly given the Supremacy which shews that an ipso facto Deprivation without a farther judgment and decision to ratifie and put it into execution is irregular and wants both Equity and Precedent I have evidenced it in four of the deprived already who were thus dealt by and as for the other two I mean Bishop Bonner and Gardiner the Procedure will appear more Canonical because in a great measure transacted by Men of their own Order and the Sentence much more Authentick because given by the Archbishop their Metropolitane and Primate Hence for the depriving of Bonner which was the first of them all that felt the affliction there were commissioned two Bishops saith Master * Page 1194. Fox three saith †Edw. 6. p. 78. Edit 1670. Dr. Heylin whereof the Archbishop was one Dr. May Dean of St. Pauls and Secretary Smith Doctor of Laws For Bishop Gardiner the Archbishop and three other Bishops one Judge three Doctors of Laws and two Masters of Chancery Neither is the Commission Fox p. 1209. enervated or in the least to be blamed or esteemed less Primitive for having a mixture of Laity in it For so Constanstine directed his Letter to Aelian the Proconsul of Africa to examine and hear the Cause Optat. cont Parm. l. 1. p. 29. of Felix Bishop of Aptung the Ordainer of Caecilian as also to Zenofilus the Proconsul of Numidia to enquire into the carriage of Silvanus Gesta
to be alike but till then I must be allowed to cry out O Tempora O Mores and with the Poet conclude that Aetas Parentum pejor avis tulit Nos nequiores mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem Carm. Hor. L. 3. Od. 6. 50. I am sensible that there are two grand Mistakes in the World which minister to and hasten on these fatal Proceedings Some think there is no such thing as Schism others that though there be such a thing yet an Act of Parliament will authorize the Fact and justifie all insomuch that through the Midwifery of a Vote or two of theirs God's Altar may be turn'd or overturn'd Aaron and his Priests deposed or forced to comply and a new Erection like that of Jeroboam's though of the worst of Men made as sacred and divine as if it were done by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Voice from Heaven And from thenceforth if the Man of God happen as his Duty binds him to oppose or gainsay their Sanctions so as their Mightinesses become disobliged though he be sent of God as Aaron was though he ruleth well and laboureth in Word and Doctrine nay though he be doing the Will and Work of his Master yet a travelling Staff and a pair of ill clouted Shoes must pass for his double Reward But how contrary this is to Practice hath already been shewn and how diametrically opposite to the genuine Constitutions of this Church and State comes now to be demonstrated 51. Populus de Republica non de Ecclesia in Parliamentis antiquitus tractare consuevit Anciently saith the Author of Antiquitates Britannicae the People never meddled with Matters of religious Concern in their Parliaments De vit Cran. p. 339. but onely with Matters purely relating to the State Nay I find by the very Act of Submission it self which was in the Year 1530. That it was customary till then for the Clergy by virtue of the Authority they had in themselves without any Ratification or Confirmation from King or Parliament to make Canons declare Heresies convict and censure Criminals and to decree and do all other Matters as seemed good to them in relation to the Church and Clergy A Power thought too great to be in the hands of the Clergy whereupon saith Heylin The House of Commons aggrieved at the inequality and supereminency of the Power Ref. just part 1. S. 1. remonstrated and complained to the King that the Clergy should be permitted to act Authoritatively and Supremely in the Convocation and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ratified by the Royal Assent This in all probability hastened on the Submission for the Clergy soon after being met in Convocation as it is recorded in the aforesaid Book of Antiquities promised the King in verbo sacerdotis ne ullas deinceps De Vit. Warh in Synodo ferrent Ecclesiasticas leges that they would not henceforth enact or execute any Constitutions or Canons in their Synods or Convocations unless the King should cause their assembling and by his Royal Assent approve and confirm their Canons But then this only levels them with and not puts them under the Parliament it leaves indeed their Decrees and Sanctions to them to be farther guarded and secured by the addition of their civil Penalties and Inflictions but no ways subjects them to them in reference to the Validity Authenticalness or prior Establishment of them And this the learned Heylin hath elaborately and fully made out as to the two first Reigns both in reference to the points of Doctrine that were reformed and to the forms of Worship that were then enjoyned in his Book entitled The way of the Reformation of the Church of England declared and justified to whom for your farther satisfaction I refer you and the Reader 52. But not content to bring them down to their own level their next design and work was to bring them under and of this the aforementioned Antiquary complains Ecclesiasticarum legum potestate abdicata populus in Parliamento cepit de rebus divinis inconsulto Clero sancire the Submission says he being made the People in their Parliament as if the In vitâ Cranm p. 339. Submission had been made to them began to usurp upon the Church's Right and without ever consulting the Clergy to debate and agree such things as formerly were held peculiarly to the Clergy only But these saith Heylin were only tentamenta offers and undertakings only and Lib. p. cit no more And that they were so and no better nor otherwise approved of during the whole Reign of Q. Elizabeth under whom the Reformation received its full and perfect establishment will sufficiently be evidenced from the Journals of the Paliaments in her days handed down to us by Sir Simon D'Ewes And I shall give them in the order they lye in When a Bill was presented to the House of Commons for Reformation of the Common Prayer Book it was agreed upon by them that a Petition Ann. 13. p. 167. should be made to her Majesty for her License to proceed in the Bill before it be farther dealt in and to do otherwise saith the Treasure is to Page 166. meddle with matters of her Prerogative and as the Comptroller phrased it to run before the Ball. Mr. Strickland having pressed very earnestly the Reformation of the Book Page 176. of Common-Prayer and other Ceremonies was called before her Majesty's Council and commanded to forbear coming to the said House and when Page 130. the said Articles of Religion were afterwards presented to her she answered That she would have them executed by the Bishops by direction of her Highness's Regal Authority of Supremacy of the Church of England and not to have the same dealt in by the Parliament The Lord Keeper in his Speech to the Parliament by her Majesty's Command Ann. 14. p. 193. thus utters himself Because the proceedings of matters in Discipline and Doctrine do chiefly concern my Lords the Bishops both for their Understanding and Ecclesiastical Function therefore the Queens Highness looketh that they being called together in Parliament should take the chifest care to confer and consult of these matters and if in their conference they find it behoofull to have any Temporal Acts made for the amending and reforming of any of these lacks that then they will exhibit it here in Parliament to be considered upon and so gladius gladium juvabit as before time hath been used The Speaker declared to the House of Commons That it was her Majesty's pleasure That from henceforth no Bills concerning Religion shall be Page 213. preferred or received into this House unless the same should be first considered and liked by the Clergy Upon the presenting the Petition concerning the Reformation of the Discipline of the Church her Highness answered That her Majesty before Ann. 18. p. 257. the Parliament had a care to provide in that case of her own
Hebraei that whilst the Jews were governed De Success in Pontific l. 2. c. 5 6 10. Lond. 1636. by their own Laws the Legitimate Succession where no impediments prevented ever took place and that it was high injustice to reject or expell any to whom the Priesthood belonged unless some or more of those irregularities were really to be found upon him The Crime indeed of Abiathar being no less than a Crime of High Treason could not but be animadverted upon But then the Crime being Capital and the High Priest the Criminal we may well conclude that before ever Solomon thrust him from the Priesthood the Sanedrim had previously judged and passed their Sentence upon him And so it fared with Joab one of his fellow Criminals for it is plain if Josephus says true That before Ant. l. 7 8. c. 11. Edit Gen. 1634. ever Solomon sent Bennajah to fall upon him he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar in order to bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Seat of Judicature there to purge himself if he could And if this formality was used towards Joab before ever the command was given to have him slain it 's probable the like was used towards Adonijah the King's Brother before he was slain and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood Nay though it should be true as some assert That the Kings of Judah were more absolute in their Authority than the Kings of Israel and did not always so formally proceed by way of Justice as the other did and that this proceeding against Abiathar might be one of those extraordinary instances of their power yet this is certain that they had thâ—ir standing Courts of Judicature all the Land over for the right and full administration of Justice to all sorts and degrees of Men the chiefest of all which and to which the last Appeal was made was ever at Jerusalem as being most near unto the King Thus Jehosaphat having constituted Judges throughout all the fenced Cities of the Land is said to have done the same at Jerusalem setting Amariah the High Priest over all in the matters of the 2 Chron. 19. 11. Lord and Zebadiuh the Son of Ishmael for all the King's matters the Secular concerns to be transacted by the King through the assistance of his Secular Judges and the Ecclesiastical by the Ministery of his Ecclesiasticks In like manner David having set out the form of the Temple and given Solomon directions for the building and ordering of it leaves him to his Priests and Levites to be farther advised The courses saith he of the Priests and Levites shall be with thee for all the service of the House of God And I dare say this power so fixed and 1 Chron. 28. 21. managed cannot but be thought so just and reasonable that as the Church of England hath all along granted it to their Kings so there is not at this time one Church-Man of the old Foundation among us that will deny it them but wish that it were so are troubled that it is not so nay can say By the waters of Babylon we sit down and weep whilst we remember thee O Sion 34. I confess there are not instances wanting in History to shew that it hath often been the practice of Emperors and Kings by their own Authority and without concerning themselves at all with a Synod to depose Bishops and thrust them from their Bishopricks But then this hath been as Petrus de Marca observes in apertissima Canonem violati Lib. 4. cap. 6. Part 1. in such cases only where the Canons of the Church have been most notoriously and scandalously violated so notoriously that there needed no proof as to matter of fact nor any thing farther to be done but to apply the punishment And of this he gives us two instances in reference to the case in hand The one of Justinian the Emperor and the other of Zeno the first deposing Anthimus for that contrary to the Canon he had deserted his own Church and invaded the See of Constantinople the latter for doing the same thing to Peter surnamed Moggus for that contrary to the Canon he had seized upon the Patriarchship of Alexandria Timothy the lawfull Bishop thereof and under Banishment being not yet dead And referring us to the Acts of the Council held by Mena at Constantiople he farther tells us That such violations aut à Principe Loco citat aut a Synodo castigari posse may be punished either by the Prince or by a Synod But now for Emperors or Kings to take this power upon them when there is no breach of Canon nay when it is contrary and contradictory to all Canon and purely for their own Will and Pleasure or because it may serve their Interest to have others in their Places and Bishopricks that may lick their spittle and cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them in all their actions This certainly must be pernicious and fatal to the Church and can bode nothing less than an utter and speedy ruine to it Of what dismal consequences this kind of dispositions have been and what sad and deplorable mischiefs they have brought along with them to the most flourishing Churches in the World I shall in a more particular manner evidence from the Jewish and Greek Churches being provoked thereunto by some of the late Treatisers 35. And because the Jewish Church offers it self first to our View I shall consider it first and shew what Success it met with whilst it was thus rid Josephus tells us that the first that ever executed this deposing Ant. l. 15. c. 3. Power was Antiochus who depriving Onias put Jason into his place a fitting Priest for so wicked a Tyrant For no sooner was he made so Lib. de Mac. cap. 4. saith the same Author but he forced all the People to Impiety and to forsake Religion Nay such saith the Author of the Book of Maccabees was the height of Greek Fashions and encrease of Heathenish Manners through 2 Mac. cap. 4. 13 14. the exceeding Prophaneness of Jason that ungodly Wretch that the Priests had no courage to serve any more at the Altar but despising the Temple and neglecting the Sacrifices hastened to be partakers of the unlawfull Allowance in the place of Exercise not setting by the Honour of their Fathers but liking the Glory of the Grecians by reason whereof sore Calamity came upon them About three years after Menelaus had Jason laid aside and himself put into the 2 Mac. 4. 24. Jos Ant. l. 12. cap. 15. High Priesthood though he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the race of the High Priests He saith the Book of Maccabees came with the King's Mandate having nothing worthy of the High Priesthood but having the fury 2 Mac. 4. 25. of a cruel Tyrant and the rage of a savage Beast And such an one he was for he stole certain
Id. vol. 2. p. 6. and Edward VI. being * Heyl. Cat. of Bishops Bp. of Westminster in both their Reigns and no less misbehaving himself than the former had done As for Watson Oglethorp and Pool though they were consecrated after the Degradation of Cranmer and probably by the Consent of their Metropolitane Cardinal Poole being then Archbishop of Canterbury yet were the several Bishopricks so filled with uncanonical Bishops for the reason before mentioned that it cannot be otherwise imagined than that their Ordainers most or all of them were of that illegitimate breed It s certain that of the seven who consecrated the Cardinal Thirlby onely stood rectus in Curia the Mas de Minist l. 2. 4 17. other being either deprived as were Heath and Bonner or else were of the number of the ordained in the time of A. Bp. Cranmer as were Pate White Griffen and Goldwell all of them Intruders and upon that account as hath been shewn uncanonical and not qualified to make a good Ordination Nay considering how many such there were and many there must be since no less than fifteen of them were consecrated in a Burnet vol. 2. p. 276. Year neither Watson nor Poole nor any other Bishop afterwards nominated could probably be ordained without them 48. But were it not thus or had those Bishops been better entituled to their Bishopricks than it appears they had been yet such was their Offence so provoking their Crime that a lesser Punishment could not reasonably be awarded against them Dr. Burnet tells us That to refuse the Hist vol. 2. p. 386. Oath of Supremacy whereby the Papal Jurisdiction was first excluded the Land which was their fault brought the Refusers of it into a Praemunire and to deny the said Superiority and Supremacy to be and to reside in the Prince was Treason And Dr. Heylin tells us That it hath Ref. just pt 2. S. 1. been and still is the general and constant Judgment of the greatest Lawyers of this Kingdom That the Vesting of the Supremacy in the Crown Imperial of this Realm was not introductory of any new Right or Power which was not in the Crown before but declaratory of an old one which had been antiently and originally inherent in it Now though this Supremacy had been in Q. Mary's Reign revoked disannulled and delivered up unto 1 2 Ph. M. c. 1. the Pope again by her and her Parliament and the several Laws and Statutes ensorcing the same repealed yet both it and the Laws in Q. Elizabeth's Reign by an equal Authority were restored and reinforced though 1 Eliz. c. 1. not under the penalty of Praemunire or of Treason as formerly but nevertheless of Deprivation to all such of the Spiritualty Bishops or others that should decline the owning or confirming of the same with their Oaths And thus Mr. Cambden states the Matter quotquot jurare abnuerunt Beneficiis Dignitatibus Episcopatibus exuuntur as many saith he as refused Eliz. p. 36. to accept and take the said Oath were deprived and turned out of their Dignities and Bishopricks An Oath containing nothing in it * Burnet's Hist pt 1. p. 182 240. Edit 1681. but what had been determined in the greatest and most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom concluded †Fox p. 965 Burn. part 1. p. 182. and agreed upon by the Vniversities subscribed to ‡ Ant. Brit. p. 324. by all the Bishops and others of the Clergy in their Convocation penn'd by some of them sworn ⸪ Burnet pt 1. p. 18. unto by most or all of those very Bishops in some part or other of the Reigns of the two precedent Kings and by them then in being before ever there was a Law for the requiring any such Oath defended ‖ Ant. Brit. p. 330. both in Press and Pulpit and with as little reason to be declined in this Queen's days as in any of her Predecessors 49. For though Oaths be not hastily to be given to every one that either takes or usurps the Throne yet here was no possible Doubt or Scruple to be made against the Title of her Majesty she being declared by the Parliament then sitting to be * Cambd. Eliz. p. 1. veram legitimamque Haeredem the true and rightfull Heir de cujus certissimo in Successione jure cum nemo dubitare possit nemo debeat so true and rightfull saith Arch Bp. Heath in the Houâ—e of Ibid. Peers that as no body can doubt of the Truth of her Succession so no body ought and so far forth recognized and owned by the present Bishops †Heyl. Hist Ref. part 2. p. 102. that they all went to meet her and presented themselves before her upon their knees in testimony of their Loyalty and Affection So that here was no calling her Title in question no quarrelling the Authority either of her or her Parliament no remonstrating to the Matter of the Oath without condemning themselves nothing but their own Perverseness to pull this Deprivation upon them A Deprivation I confess not so regular as it should have been being executed altogether by a Lay Power but yet as regular as the Case would bear and not without a Commission neither according to Stow and others to examine and make out their Misdemeanours the utmost that could possibly then be done Stow p. 1082. Holling p. 182. How p. 639. the whole Order of them Kitchen of Landaff onely excepted being at that time under one and the same Guilt and lay alike open to one and the same Penalty And had they not for that reason been displaced till there was a College of Bishops or a Court of Episcopal Delegates to displace them they must never for all their Disobedience though never so wilfull and provoking have been displaced nor indeed have had their Crimes punished But what is that to us or wherein doth it concern the Bishops that are now deprived Had any of them taken Commission to surrender upon Demand Had they at any time before been deprived Wanted they either due Titles or canonical Ordination Were they â—rdained without the presence or Approbation of their Metropolitane Or was he himself ordained by such that were so ordained Was the Oath for which they were deprived ever formally tendered to them Or did it ever appear upon tender that they refused it Was it of their own framing Or had they before either taken written or preach'd for it Nay was it not contrary to their former Preachings Declarations and Oaths Was the Authority imposing it either in reference to Prince or Parliament an unquestionable Authority Were any delegated to make out the Disobedience Or were there not Bishops enough Nay Might not a Convocation of the complying Clergy have been summoned to have judged and determined of the Case whether Culprit or no When these things are proved and made out against them I cannot nay I shall not but confess their Deprivations
Ordinis cum Lib. 5. Ep. 32. judicare debet qui nec manere impar sit nec jure dissimilis they and they only are to be deputed Judges over Ecclesiasticks who are of the same Order and therefore to be presumed the most competent Judges because most knowing in those Affairs Hoc est Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit judicare that is as St. Ambrose comments upon it he would have Bishops to be the onely Judges of Bishops An Authority though partly Temporal yet of that nature that instead of laying waste the Church of supplanting the Bishops or of subverting the Canons it became a real defence and patronage to them all and no sooner experienced but was as frankly and freely consented to in reference to the succeeding Emperors Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperatore it seemeth good say the Bishops in the Milevitan Council that if any shall appeal to the Emperor to have Cen. 19. his Cause tried before Secular Judges he be deprived but if he appeal to have an Hearing thereof before a Synod of Bishops it shall no ways displease Thus did Pope Innocent address himself to Honorius to have the Schism between St. Chrysostome and Arsacius ended First he writes to Theophilus that great Promoter of it to challenge him to a Council We cannot saith he either in Reason or Justice withdraw our selves from Chrysostom 's Pallad de Vit. Chrys c. 3. p. 24. Communion and therefore if you dare abide by the Judgment you have made of his Deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make your Appearance before the next Synod And after that he with the rest of the Italian Bishops sends to Honorius that he would write to his Brother Arcadius Co Emperour with him that a Council for that end might be convened where both Eastern and Western Bishops might conveniently meet which Honorius accordingly did sending his Letters by five Bishops two Presbyters and one Deacon assuring him That if either he or his Bishops could satisfie them that Chrysostome was duly and justly deposed he for his part would withdraw all Communion from him but if not that he then hoped He would be prevailed with to desert their Communion and their new made Patriarch Whence it is obvious to infer 1. That where two Bishops are placed at one time in a See a Schism must necessarily ensue 2. That Synods onely are the Deposers of Bishops and the onely Judges of a Deposition 3. That neither Emperour Senate Privy Council or Secular Power whatsoever can do it without making a Schism 4 That till a Synod be called and hath determined the Matter the first must be accounted the lawful Bishop and the second with his Adherent the Schismatick 26. And as this was the Usage Practice and Custome of all foreign Churches so it was one of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those antient Customs that the English Church hath observed Ego Constantini vos Petri Gladium habetis in Manibus I saith K. Edgar as cited by Twisden wear the Sword of Vind. Chur. 2. p. 94. Constantine and you of St. Peter Now how far the first exercised his Authority in reference to the case before us is already shewn and if K. Edgar went no farther we are sure there was no seizing upon Bishops or of putting others into their Bishopricks before they were heard and condemned by Bishops Indeed the Author of the Discourse concerning the Illegality of the late Ecclesiastical Commission tells us That P. 11 12. the Saxon Laws are a plain Evidence that Church Matters were in those times determined in the same Assemblies wherein the other Laws of the Kingdom were determined and I am apt to think that in a great measure they were But then as the learned Spelman observes Episcopuâ— jura Gloss Tit. Gemot divina enuntiabat Comes secularia alter alteri auxilio the Bishops declared and vindicated the Ecclesiastical Laws and the Nobles the Secular each supporting and assisting the other the one according to the Canons of the Church and the other according to the Municipal Laws of the Land Nay I cannot see but in some cases their actings might be separate sure I am that in the Synod held at Bacanceld and in that other soon after held at Clovesho for the restoring the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitical See of Canterbury to its Archibishop of which it had been despoiled by K. Offa contra Canones Apostolica Statuta in duas scissa Paroechias and contrary to all Canons and Constitutions Apostolical divided into two and Spel. Conc. in Ep. Kenul ad Leon. 3. in part given to Adulphus his Favourite there was none of the Laity in them no Earls no great Men of the Nation the one being held as we see in Spelman Praesidente Kenulso Rege by the King Archbishop Bishops Conc. Brit. an 709 803. and Abbats multis aliis idoneis personis and many other not great Men or Nobles but fitting persons the other ab Athelardo Archiepiscopo cum duodecim Episcopis potiori Clero by the Archbishop of Canterbury and twelve other Bishops with the chiefest of their Clergy as may appear by their respective Subscriptions and Spelman's Notes upon them adding this severe and terrible Denunciation Hear oh Heavens and give ear oh Earth Siquis quod omnino absit If any one which God forbid shall at any time hereafter presume against the Apostolical Precepts and this our Determination Tunicam Christi scindere Vnitatem ejus Ecclesiae dividere to tear the seamless Coat of Christ and thereby to divide the Vnity of the Church of Canterbury sciat se esse aeternaliter damnandum let him know that if he repents him not of that his fault he shall be eternally damned But be it so or not as the Authour avers yet in this we shall not much dissent that K. William I. having brought England under the power of his Sword separated Judicatures referring as it was in Constantine's days Ecclesiastical Matters to Ecclesiastical Judges Thus in a Council held at Winchester he himself being present with three * Spelm. anno 1070. Legates from Rome totius Cleri populus the whole Synod of the †Antiq. Brit. de Sâ—igand Clergy after they had heard divers things objected against Stigand then Archbishhp of Canterbury eum Episcopatu Ordinibus abdicabant deprived him both of his Archbishoprick and his Office The Crimes were chiefly these quod Archiepiscopatum Roberto vivente neque amoto possidisset because he had possessed himself of the Archbishoprick Robert the Archbishop being alive and not deposed and had worn the Pall which he left behind him being by Force most unjustly driven from thence Crimes every way deserving Deposition and because done by a Synod justly so punished and if Crimes then they are and must be so now let Stigand and his Party think what they will At the same time and by the same Synod was Agelmar Bishop of the East Angles deposed
two Bishops in a Church at a time from whence Schism of course must arise 29. Neither is this the onely aggravation of the present Schism that Bishops of an indisputable Title without being either previously heard or judicially sentenced are deprived but that the Primate of all England is one of those Bishops The Canon is alike against multiplying of Metropolitans in a Province as of multiplying Bishops in a Diocess Statutum est it is ordained saith Gratian referring us to the twelfth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon quod duo Metropolitani in una eadem provincia Dist 101. esse non dâ—bent that two Metropolitans ought not to be had in one and the same Province and therefore when Augustin the Monk by Authority from the Pope would have thrust himself upon the British Bishops they would not submit saith Bede to any of his orders neque illum pro Hist l. 2. c. 2. Edit Lovaâ— 1566. Archiepiscopo habiturum nor receive him for their Archbishop as having an Archbishop of their own And Huntington relating the mâ—tter as cited by Baziere adds that neither the Britains nor the Irish would communicate Hist l. 36. Lib. Brit. Chur. with him or with the English that were governed by him more than with Pagans giving this for their reason because he did seem to deal uncanonically by them in constraining them to take him for their Archbishop when they had an Archbishop before And if we do but consider the high standing the Primate hath in the Church and the reason of his being set there which was as Spalato speaks ut unitas de Repub. Ec. lib. 3. cap. 2. concordia inter Episcopos servaretur that Vnity and Concord might be preserved among the several Bishops of the Province it must every way be held as reasonable to have but one Primate in a Province as one Bishop in a Church And hence it is that the Apostolical Canon enjoyns the Can. Apost 34. Conc. Aut. Can. 9. the Bishops of every Nation or Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have always a regard to him who is the chief among them and to esteem him as their head yea and so far to be headed by him as to come under his Precedency by virtue whereof the whole Province becomes but one Church the Deacons and Presbyters acting under their Bishop the Bishops under their Metropolitans and the Metropolitans under their Primate or Patriarch And it is the breaking this Chain and the going off from this Subordination that begets a Schism but never proves it so fatal as when the Primate suffers in it This holy Synod say the Constantinoplitan Fathers perceiving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Temp. Apost Can. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Devil is busie through the fury of Schismaticks to divide the Church doth for the prevention of the same determine that if any Presbyter or Deacon suspecting or knowing his Bishop to be faulty shall presume to separate himself from him and forbear naming of him in the Church's Prayers as it is customary to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a Synodical Hearing Examination and perfect Judgment shall be had in the case he for so doing be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the future deprived of all their Sacerdotal Honour and the like They decree to those Can. 14. Bishops that upon the same account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separate themselves from the Communion of their Metropolitan And the Can. 15. like again to those Metropolitanes that shall separate themselves from their Primate or Patriarch thereby making a Schism and breaking the Unity of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though guilty of no other fault than such separation 30. The old Rule was that nothing be done in the Church without him meaning as it is a Provincial Church And Balsamon in his Commentaries upon the aforesaid Apostolical Canon which commands the Bishops Can. 34. of every Nation to observe the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to transact nothing in the Church of the more weighty affairs thereof without him tells us wherein these weighty affairs consist and that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as relate to Ecclesiastical Constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cannot otherwise be transacted by the respective Bishops in their respective Diocesses And whence it is that one of the chief Branches of his superintended Authority arises and that is to call and convene all the Bishops of the Province into a Synod in order to have all such matters debated stated and provided for that all Irregularities may be amended and all Schisms prevented Now we are told by the Council of Antioch that that and that only is a true and right Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the Metropolitan Can. 16. presides and that it is not lawfull for any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 20. of their own heads or by a separate Authority from him to call Synods Insomuch that if the present Metropolitan be usurped upon and not rightfully deposed all Synods that are and shall be called and all matters that are or shall be debated therein and determined thereby must necessarily fall to the ground and have no Virtue or Solidity in them I am sensible a Man may bear up the Name and hold the State of a Bishop answerably habited with his Pastoral Staff in his hand and a Mitre upon his head he may call a Synod and have his Bishops and Clergy about him bestowing his Prebendaries to some his Archdeaconries to others nay reditus census capones he may receive Rents Services Capons c. whilst his Regency holds All this did the Episcopus Puerorum as he is described and deciphered by Mr. Gregory of Christ-Church Oper. Posth p. 117. Edit 1665. and yet he was but a mock Bishop and so he died without any farther Character of a Bishop upon him notwithstanding he be buried in the Pontifical Ornaments of a Bishop and had a Dragon under his feet with a Motto as great and as proud as ever Bishop usurped conculcabis Leonem Draconem 31. Another of his unquestionable Prerogatives and Priviledges as he is Primate of the Province an Office according to Petrus de Marca of Lib. 6. c. 1. Part 3. Apostolical Tradition and coaeval with Christianity it self is that no Bishop ought to be ordained or taken for a Bishop within the Province that is not ordained by him or with his approbation and consent Insomuch that if a thousand Bishops be made without his consent and much more against it they can be no Bishops And this is evident from the first Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. if any one be made a Bishop without the allowance and good liking of the Metropolitan this great Council decrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that such an one shall be no Bishop at all and so it was decreed in the first Council at Antioch
purg ad Optat. Bishop of Cirta one of the Ordainers of Majorinus thereby to find out which of the two were Traditors that the Controversy between the Caecilianists and the Donatists might be stated and ended unde pulsa atque exter sa infamia cum ingenti laude illo judicio recessit by which Judgment of theirs saith Optatus the infamous aspersions that were cast upon Cont. Par. l. 1. p. 30. Caecilian and Felix by the Donatists were wiped off to the eternal Honour of Caecilian and his adherents And thus also for the better management of the Conference between the Catholick and the Donatists Bishops Honorius the Emperor appointed Macellinus his Tribune for a Judge in the case before whom saith Possidonius the Donatists being convicted of De Vitâ Aug. their faults sententia Cognitoris notati sunt were by his Sentence declared guilty and thereupon condemned And thus might Tonstal of Duresme as well as Bonner of London or as Gardiner of Winchester have had their Cause heard had not Archbishop Gardiner refused to meddle because Burnet Part 2. lib. 1. p. 216. he was found to lye under a misprison of Treason And so properly might Voisy of Exeter been tried but for the same reason for he also was found saith Heylin to have fomented the Rebellion of the Devonshire Edw. 6. p. 100 Men And whether Day of Winchester was not in with them and for that reason also not tried by Cranmer to me it is doubtful for the Historian confesses he cannot tell us whether his Deprivation arose from Reform Par. 2. lib. 1. p. 203. the refusing to submit to the new Book or his falling into other transgressions However I cannot but observe 1. That the aforesaid Bishops enjoyed their Bishopricks notwithstanding an ipso facto Deprivation till a farther process was made aad a declaratory Sentence passed upon them 2. That Bonner who led the way unto the rest was not deprived till four months or more after the Act of Deprivation took Fox 1209. place Gardiner not till two years almost after Bonner Voisy not till Heylin p. 100. some months after the Sentence passed upon Gardiner Day Heath Tonstal Burnet lib. 2. p. 203. 216. not till some months after him so slowly was the Act at that time executed 3. That as they enjoyed their Bishopricks till their Deprivations so in all probability they enjoyed the Profits and Revenues thereof Gardiner's were not sequestered from him till within three Heyl. Edw. 6. p. 99. months of the time yea and then also his House and Servants were maintained out of his Bishoprick to the very instant that the declarary Fox p. 1218. Sentence was judiciously pronounced against him This was the Case of the deprived Bishops then and if this method had been taken in reference to our present Bishops that is had the matter for which they are deprived been debated in a Convocation of the Clergy and there concluded that the Allegiance they had sworn might lawfully be transferred without the Breach of Oath or guilt of Perjury had the Refusers of the said transferring been afterwards by a true and legal Parliament decreed to be deprived and had they upon that been Legally and Canonically evicted of such a refusal though no such time had been allowed them nor no such favour granted as in the interim to enjoy their Bishopricks and the Revenues of them nay though after all the Sanctions of the one and the Determinations of the other had seemed to them unjust there would not have been such cause as there is for a complaint So that I think we may cry out of the Injustice at least of the unprecedented Severity of the present Age and yet neither blemish nor expose the Reformation 44. Neither will they be assisted or screened by any thing that was done in Q. Elizabeth's Reign For though according to Stow there were Ann. 2. Eliz. p. 182. Eliz. p. 36. Ed. Lond. 1615. thirteen or fourteen deprived of their Bishopricks omnes qui tunc â—ederunt praeter unum Antonium Landevensem all says Cambden that were then Bishops which he reckons to be sixteen in number besides him of Landaff yet will their Deprivations be found of a quite different nature to those that have been made in our days And to make this out four things are necessary to be observed 45. First That all matters of Ecclesiastical concern were left at King Edward's death under a full and regular establishment consented and agreed thereunto by the King in his Convocation as well as by the King in his Parliament And so it is asserted to be in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter as cited out of Master Fox by the Author of Church-Government viz. that the Reformation as touching the Common-Prayer Book Part 5. p. 130. from the second year of his Reign and as touching other Articles of Religion from the fifth was Regular and Canonical as being the Act of the Clergy Thus was the Supemacy and Service Book established as is before shewn thus also were the Articles of Religion and in them the Tit. Art 1552. Art 31. St. 5. 6 Edw. 6. cap. 12. Marriage of the Clergy agreed upon own'd by the Parliament it self to have been so in the Act for adjudging such Marriages lawfull declaring therein that the Learned Clergy of the Realm had determined the same by the Law of God in their Convocations as well by the common assent as by the subscription of their hands 2. That no less Authority ought to be allowed to null the establishment than what was thought necessary by the standing Laws of the Land at first to make it and therefore since it had its Birth and Rise from the King and Convocation as well as from the King and Parliament and more properly from the first than from the latter the Queen had not power of her self no nor by the Parliament without the Convocation to destroy it And hence her own Clergy in Q. Elizabeth's days foreseeing the ill effect of such Power utterly disclaimed it and in their Convocation declared against it telling the Parliament in hopes to keep their Possessions but in the mean time forgetting the method whereby they came possessed that the Authority to handle and define such things which belong to Heyl. Q. Eliz. p. 113. Faith in the Sacraments and Discipline Ecclesiastical hath hitherto ever belonged and only ought to belong to the Pastor of the Church whom the Holy Spirit hath placed in the Church and not unto Lay-Men no though in Parliament as then they were assembled 3. That the Power whereby Q. Mary acted for dissolving the Reformation and for the laying aside the Bishops that asserted it was a less Authority than that by which at first it was established For no sooner was she come unto the Crown upon the death of K. Edw. VI. but and before ever a Heyl. Hist Q. Mary p. 22. Parliament was called she purely
disposition and that at the beginning of this Session she had conference therein with some of the Bishops and gave them in charge to see due Reformation thereof wherein as her Majesty thinketh they will have good consideration and if that the Bishops should neglect or omit their Duties therein then she by her Supreme Power and Authority would speedily see such good Redress therein as might satisfie the expectation of her loving Subjects to their good contentation Mr. Wentworth moved in the House of Commons for a Publick Fast and it was carried by fifty voices which being told to the Queen she sent Ann. 23. p. 284. a Message to the House shewing That her Highness had great admiration of the rashnesâ— of the House in committing such great and apparent Contempt of her express Command to put in execution such an Innovation without her privity or pleasure first known Whereupon Mr. Vicechamberlain moved the House to make an humble Submission to her Majesty acknowledging the said Offence and Contempt and to crave Remission for the same with a full purpose to forbear committing of the like So by the Suffrage of the whole House Mr. Vicechamberlain carried their Submission to the Queen accordingly which she accepted but with a Monition That they do not misreport the Cause of her Misliking which was not for that they Page 285. desired Fasting and Prayer but for the manner in presuming to indict a form of publick Fast without her Order and Privity which was to intrude upon her Authority Ecclesiastical Upon sundry Motions touching some Reformation in matters of Religion contained in the Petitions exhibited to the House of Commons it was resolved Page 201. by the whole House that Mr. Vicechamberlain c. by Order of this House and in the Name of the whole House should move the Lords of the Clergy to continue unto her Majesty the prosecution of the Purposes of Reformation and also farther impart unto their Lordships the earnest desire of the House for the Redress of such other Griefs contained likewise in the said Petitions But not finding the thing done to their liking they afterwards petitioned Page 303. the Queen and received for an Answer That as her Highness had the last Session committed the Charge and Consideration thereof unto some of her Clergy who had not performed the same so she would soon commit the same unto such others of them as with all convenient speed without remisness or slackness should see the same accomplished accordingly in such sort as the same shall neither be delayed nor undone The Lords of the upper House being pressed to join with the House of Commons for redressing some of the aforementioned Grievances answered Ann. 27. p. 345. That they were present when her Majesty gave Commandment not to deal in the House of Commons with Matters concerning Religion or the Church without her Highness's Pleasure first known and do take the same Commandment to extend as well to their Lordships as to the Commons and therefore have resolved That those of the Lords which are of her Majesty's privy Council do first move her Highness to know her Majesty's Pleasure therein before they proceed any farther in the Matter Mr. Leuknor Hulston Bainbridge and Cope were sent unto the Tower Ann. 28. 29. p. 412. for intermeddling with Matters touching the Church which her Highness had so often inhibited and Motion being made by Sr. John Higham for the setting them at liberty Mr. Vicechamberlain answered That perhaps they might be committed for somewhat that concerned not the Business or Privilege of the House Mr. Davenport moved for some Reformation in Church matters but Ann. 31. p. 438. this motion was check'd by Dr. Wolley because contrary to the Inhibition of the Queen The Ld. Keeper told the Speaker of the Commons That their Privilege Ann. 35. p. 460. was not to speak what cometh into their Brains to utter and that it was her Highness's Pleasure That if he perceived any idle Heads to meddle with reforming the Church by exhibiting Bills to that purpose that he received them not untill they be reviewed and considered by those who it is fitter should consider of such things and can better judge of them Mr. Speaker tells the Commons That it was not her Majesty's Pleasure that the Commons should meddle in matters of State or Causes Ecclesiastical Page 479. That she wondred that any should be of so high Commandment to attempt a thing so expresly contrary to that which she had forbidden and that her express commandment to him was that no Bill touching the said matters of State or Reformation in Causes Ecclesiastical should be exhibited charging him upon his Allegiance That if any such Bill be exhibited not to read it Mr. Morrice an Attorney of the Dutchey of Lancaster moved for reformation of Ecclesiastical proceedings Mr. Dalton answerd that Page 474. the Ecclesiastical Government was distinct from the Temporal and that her Majesty had commanded them not to meddle in such matters And Dr. Heylin tells us that the proceedings of this Morrice so angered Pres to Hist of Ref. the Queen that she caused the person of the said Attorney to be seized upon deprived him of his places in the Dutchey Court disabled him practising as a common Lawyer and finally shut him up in Tutbury-Castle where he continued till his death By which severity says he and keeping the like constant hand in the course of the Government she held so great a curb on the Puritan Faction the great disturber of the Ecclesiastical Settlement that neither her Parliaments nor her Courts of Justice were from thenceforth much troubled with them in all the rest of her Reign So that now lay all these Premises together how that no such Bills touching Ecclesiastical Affairs are to be received into the House of Commons without her Majesty's privity and pleasure or unless previously considered and liked by the Clergy that all proceedings tending thereunto are avowed injuries to the Queen's Supremacy and her Ecclesiastical Authority that the Bishops and Clergy are fitter persons to consult about and order such matters than the Parliament that the Ecclesiastical Government is distinct from the Temporal and the Penalties of the latter are only to abet and enforce the Results of the former that their attempts to gain a Superiour Jurisdiction have always been check'd and ended in disappointments and that the persons so attempting were some of them forbad the House others turned out of their Offices and others sent to the Tower though at the same time actual Members of Parliament without having their hard usage remonstrated against or their persons remanded that this was in the best of Reigns and soon after the Reformation was compleated nay finally that there was a present abrenunciation of all such Power made and as absolute a submission as ever had been made by the Clergy in K. Henry VIII's days and it will demonstratively appear
Bishop in his stead a Man saith Sozomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist l. 4. c. 10. always reported to be firm to the Nicene Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as to matters of Religion altogether blameless And yet when Liberius was recalled from his banishment Felix was forced to retire nay the People of Rome though requâ—sted thereunto by the Emperor would not so much according to Theodoret as suffer him to Hist l. 2. c. 17. remain Copartner with the other in the Bishoprick From whence it was evident let Mr. Hody say what he will to the contrary that there is something more required in a new Bishop than barely to be Orthodox in the Faith and Catholick in his Belief and that plainly is if the Canons of the Church which were of old looked upon in Sacredness and Authority next to the Evangelists may umpire and determine not to invade another Bishop's See the See not being forfeited made void or vacated by the Canons of the Church A rule of such Catholick Authority in the Church that the known Violaters of it were no less rejected from its Communion than were the Violators of the most holy and sacred Evangels and though otherwise never so deserving a Bishoprick adjudged ever after altogether unfit to preside and govern in the Church Nay I cannot but in the third place observe and still my eye is upon Mr. Hody Thirdly That when Heresy prevailed and made its Bishops and its Party the Canon against Intrusion was no less pleaded against them to render them uncanonical than was their Heresy Hence we find Julius of Rome after he was informed of the Invasion made by Gregory the Arian upon Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria complaining no less of the irregularity thereof than as if there had been no Heresy at all in the case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where saith he in answer to his Letter from Antioch is there any such Ecclesiastical Athan. Apol. 2. p. 201. Canon or any such Apostolical Tradition That a Man who is a Stranger or a Foreigner should be made Bishop at Antioch and sent to Alexandria to be Bishop there introduced not by the Clergy of the City nor by the Bishops of the Province but by a Guard of Russians and Souldiers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole Church at that same time being at peace within it self and all the Bishops of the same in perfect Communion and Concord with Athanasius their lawfull and proper Bishop consider I pray you if such a thing had been acted against any of you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Would you not have inveigh'd against it Would you not have required satisfaction for so palpable a Breach of the Canons Believe me and I speak it saith he in the sincerity of my heart and as in the presence of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is no rihghteous doing not according to Equity nor according to Canon Nay so incensed were the Ecclesiasticks at this Invasion of his that none of them would go unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Ep. ad Orthod p. 171. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except some that were Hereticks like himself some that for their irregularities had been cast out of the Church and some few that had play'd the Hypocrite out of fear yea and so enraged were the People against him that being deprived of their lawfull Ministers so as to have none left either to baptize or to visit them in their sickness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they rather chose to hazard themselves and their Children than to have him and his Clergy to bless them I confess this might arise in a great measure from their disgust to him his dealings and his Arianism but withall something of it cannot but be ascribed to the aversion they had to this uncanonical Promotion for being afterwards under a far worse usage by Count Syrianus they applied themselves to Maximus the Praefect and other of the Magistrates telling them that if it were the Emperor's pleasure to have them persecuted they Pope Alex. Ec. Sub. Athan. p. 240. were willing and ready to be Martyr'd but if not then they that would be pleased to intercede for them that they might enjoy the most Reverend Athanasius whom God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the wonted succession of their forefathers had set over them to be their Archbishop and that no other contrary to such succession might be put upon them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which rather say they than suffer we have even unto death resisted A zeal that attended the Primitive Christians from the very first to the last and as hard to let go as the Faith it self And this in a manner is confess'd by Mr. Hody himself at least by his Prefacer Vide Pref. who tells us that at the time the Manuscript was wrote there was a Party of Men Friends to the deprived says he but perhaps more to the Discipline and Canons of the Church who adhering to him I suppose because uncanonically deprived gave out that the former was still their Genuine and Canonical Bishop and that it was sinfull to have Communion with the new one And this as he guesses was in the end of the Twelfth or the beginning of the Thirteenth Century It seems the Canon for one Bishop in a Church at a time and the inconveniency of having more unless the first be Canonically deprived even till then was retained in the minds of Men and endeavoured after for the good of the Church if possible to be received Nay I cannot but consider in the fourth place Fourthly That if there be Heresy in the case tho' rising from the more nice and speculative Doctrines of Christianity the deprived Bishops are then according to Mr. Hody to stand upon their Right and the People to adhere to them And if so then certainly much more when the practical Doctrines of Faith Justice and moral Honesty and the Commandments that enjoyn them are concerned which practical Doctrines and Commandments are as holy in themselves as dear to God and the Church as the more speculative Doctrines the consubstantial Doctrine not excepted and more than other nice Theories which occur in the Controversies concerning Eutychianism Monothelitism c. the believing contrary to which is called Heresy Insomuch that if a deprived Bishop in the Greek Church must and would have stood out against an Eutychian or Monothelite Successor and defended his Church against them much more our deprived Bishops to stand out against their Successors in defence of those moral Principles in adherence to which they suffered Deprivation Doubtless a virtuous and good Life was as much intended and promoted by our Saviour in the establishment of his Kingdom amongst us as a good Faith or a right Belief and his Apostles and Ministers to whom and to whose Successors the care of the Church was committed had it as much in charge to propagate the one as the other Dr. Sherlock hath been heard
despising the Church shall presume to perform the Offices of the Church * * In the Orig. It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Printed Canons have it the officiating Presbyter not being thereunto licensed by the Bishop let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 5. Canon of the Synod of Antioch If any Presbyter or Deacon despising his own Bishop hath withdrawn himself from the Church and set up an Altar in a private Meeting and shall disobey the admonitions of the Bishop and will not be persuaded by him nor submit to him exhorting of him again and again he is absolutely to be deposed and ought no longer to be treated as a curable person neither as one who can retain his honour and if he shall persevere to make tumults and disturbances in the Church he is to be turned over as a seditious person to the Secular Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 15 Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop accused of any Crimes be condemned by all the Bishops of the Province who have all with one accord denounced the same sentence against him such an one by no means ought to be judged again by others but the concordant sentence of the Provincial Bishops ought to remain firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 10 Canon of the Synod of Carthage If any Presbyter being puffed up against his own Bishop shall make a Schism let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 13 Canon of the Synod of Constantinople called the first and second Synod The Devil having sown the seeds of Heretical Tares in the Church of Christ seeing them cut up by the roots by the Sword of the Spirit hath betaken himself to a new way and method viz. to divide the Church by the madness of Schismaticks but the holy Synod being also willing to obviate this Stratagem of his hath decreed as followeth If any Presbyter or Deacon under pretence of accusing his own Bishop of any Crimes shall presume to withdraw from his Communion and not to mention his Name in the holy Prayers of the Liturgy according to the Tradition of the Church * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Judgment and Trial such a one shall be deposed and deprived of all Sacerdotal honour For he that is in the Order of a Priest and shall usurp the power of judging bâ—longing to the Metropolitanes and as much as in him lies shall condemn his own Father and Bishop before sentence pronounced by them he is worthy neither of the honour nor appellation of a Presbyter and those who are followers of such an one if they are in Holy Orders even any of them shall be degraded from his proper honour but if they are Monks or Laicks they shall by all means be excommunicated from the Church untill abhorring the conversation of Schismaticks they shall return unto their proper Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 14 Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop pretending an accusation against his Metropolitane ††〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Judgment shall withdraw himself from Communion with him and shall not recite his Name according to custom in Divine Service the holy Synod hath decreed that such an one shall be deposed if after private admonition he shall depart from his own Metropolitane and make a Schism For it behoves every one to know his own proper bounds and that neither the Presbyter depise his own proper Bishop nor the Bishop his own Metropolitane 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 15 Canon of the same Synod These decrees concerning Presbyters Bishops and Metropolitanes agree also to Patriarchs So that if any Bishop or Metropolitane shall presume to depart from Communion with his own Patriarch and shall not mention his Name in the Divine Offices as is decreed and ordered but shall make a separation * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical conviction and final condemnation of him the holy Synod hath decreed that such an one be absolutely deposed from all Sacred Orders if he offend in this kind after private admonition And these things are decreed and enacted concerning those who under pretence of any accusations revolt from their own Superiors and make a Schism ††〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Prints only and break the Vnity of the Church But if any shall separate themselves from Communion with their Superior for any Heresie condemn'd by the holy Synods and Fathers he publickly Preaching the same Heresie to the People and teaching it bare-fac'd in the Church Such shall not be only free from Canonical censure for separating themselves from Communion with the Bishop so called ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical condemnation but shall be thought worthy of the honour that is due to the Orthâ—dox because they have not condemned a Bishop but a false Bishop and a false Teacher and have not divided the Unity of the Church by Schism but have studiously endeavoured to preserve the Church from Schism and Divisions From this Collection of Canons which speaks of no Deposition or Deprivation of Bishops but what is Synodical an unprejudiced Reader will easily perceive that the Author of the Manuscript of which this Collection is the latter part ought to be understood of the former not of Secular but of Ecclesiastical Deprivations by Synods abusing their lawfull power and unjustly depriving and deposing Bishops whom they ought not to have deprived and deposed And that the Author ought to be so understood is farther evident from his citing the Synods explication of their Canons as well as the Canons themselves with respect to which they tell us that notwithstanding what is said in those Canons the People and Priests may separate from their Bishops or the Bishops from their Metropolitane or the Metropolitane from the Patriarch before Synodical condemnation if they openly and publickly Preach any Heresie which is already condemned by the holy Synods which strongly implies that he thought that they were not upon any other account to forsake them unless they were Synodically condemned and that the unjust deposions he speaks of in his Treatise are to be understood of unjust depositions by Synods i. e. of unjust depositions by the proper and competent but erring Judge As great as the decay of ancient Discipline was in the Greek Church in the Age when Master B. thinks this Manuscript was written Synodical depositions though by most degenerate and corrupt Synods was still the common practice of it and Emperors still deprived Bishops by the old way of Synodical Authority as is plain from the deposition of Arsenius Patriarch of Constantinople by the procurement of the usurping Michael Paleologus of which I will here give a short account out of Nicephorus Gregoras because it caused the greatest Schism that ever happened at Constantinople but that upon the deposition of John Chrysostom and also
because it is very probable that this anonymous Treatise now published against us was written upon the occasion of this Schism The Emperor Theodosius Lascaris the second Son of Theodorus Ducas Lib. 3. by Irene Daughter of Theodorus Lascaris the first dying in the 36th year of his Age left John Lascaris his Son a Minor of six years of Age under the Tutorship of Muzalon and Arsenius the Patriarch of Constantinople But Muzalon a Man of inferior Quality perceiving he was envied by the Nobles and common People offered to resign his Trust into the hands of the Nobles convened for this purpose but they refused to let him part with his Trust and not long after with the whole Army took an Oath to him under the highest Imprecations to themselves and their Families that without any Treachery they would maintain him in the Wardship of the young Prince and reserve the Empire for him and his Posterity But notwitstanding this Oath some of the Nobles six days after set upon Muzalon in the Church and slew him and his two Brothers at the Altar whither they had fled for Shelter Upon this Arsenius very much perplexed consults with the Nobles what was to be done for the Safety of the Prince in which Consultation they chose Michael Paleologus to take the Administration upon him under the Title of Despot during his Minority After this the chief among the Nobles declare him Emperour which Lib. 6. troubled the good Patriarch exceedingly who thereupon had thoughts of excommunicating the Usurper and all his Adherents but upon farther deliberation he thought it more advisable to give way and bind both him and them by new Oaths to give Security to the Prince both as to his Life and Succession to the Throne when he should come to Age. Shortly after he had taken this security from them he was forced at the instance of the Senate and Clergy to tie the Diadem upon the Head of Paleologus with his own hands but when he did it he made him swear again that he should recede from the Government and lay by all the Regalia to make way for the Prince when he came of Age. But after this the good old Man seeing the Prince his Pupil despised retired from his Church into a Monastery and was succeeded by Nicephorus Bishop of Ephesus who died after he had enjoyed his dignity a year Soon after this Paleologus being peaceably setled in Constantinople and the Government calls back Arsenius and makes him Patriarch again upon the vacancy of Nicephorus And not long after resolving to keep the Empire for himself he persisted to marry the Sisters of the Prince to inferior persons and without any regard to humanity or his repeated Oaths he puts out the Eyes of the Prince and sent him to be safely kept in a remote Prison The Patriarch upon this excommunicates the Emperor Peleologus who in a seeming humble manner desires to be absolved from the excommunication but not being able to obtain absolution from the Patriarch he calls a Synod to meet in the Palace to try him for some pretended Crimes which he pickt up here and there against him The Synod met and the cowardly time serving Bishops strove which should be most forward in having their Patriarch acâ—used and accordingly they cited him to appear and called for his accuseâ—s but he refused to appear upon this exception that the Synod was indicted by the Emperor his open Adversary wâ—â— in effect was also his Judge Upon his non appearing he was deposed by the Synod for contumacy and upon 〈◊〉 Deposition banished by the perjured Emperor and Germanus Bishop of Adrianople the â—â—perâ—r's old Friend succeeded in his Throne Upon this a great Schism arose in Constâ—â—â—â—nople among the People who looked upon Germanus as an Usurper counting Arseâ—i◠〈◊〉 be their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or true Patriarch after deposition because he was â—â—justly deposed wherefore Germanus not being able to endure the affronts and reproacâ—â—◠〈◊〉 the people quitted the Throne and was succeeded by Josephus a Monk who dâ—◠〈◊〉 understand Greek but absolved the perjured Emperor and afterwards retired fro◠〈◊〉 See into a Monastery and during his administration there was still a strong Part◠〈◊〉 adhered to Aâ—senius and continued to do so in the time of Becus who after the deâ—â—◠〈◊〉 Lib. 5. Lib. 6. the Emperor privately withdrew from his Station into a Monastery and was succeede◠〈◊〉 Josephus the Patriarch whom before he had succeeded but still the Schism contiâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 â—ome being for Josephus Arseniús being now dead and others being against him beâ—â—◠〈◊〉 as they prttended Arsenius had excommunicated him in his life time for invadâ—â—◠〈◊〉 See while he was alive and the Parties thus contesting one with another Josephus 〈◊〉 for peace sake and partly because he was old and infirm once more retired and 〈◊〉 succeeded by Gregorius Cyprius who it seems understood the learned Greek well but â—â—â—ther was the Schism suddenly quieted in his time though I suppose this famous Manuscâ—â—â—â— had been written under some of the Successors of Arsenius to appease it and I deâ—â—â— Mr. Hody and Mr. B. his Voucher to tell us how the People of Constantinople came to â—â—pose so many Successors of Arsenius if according to the Greek Manuscript Neither tâ—â— justly deprived Bishop nor the Church ever made a separation from his Successor if he were â— Heretick What! Are they the first that did so No both these Gentlemen and tâ—â— Graeculus esuriens know better but however as he thought it might serve a turn the◠〈◊〉 write his Book so they thought it might serve a turn now to Print it and commend 〈◊〉 an excellent Tract though it is really a trifling piece written with little skill and leâ—â—â—â—â—cerity by an Author of little Antiquity and Authority in a most ignorant and coâ—â—â—â—â— Age when it was counted a mighty thing in a Greek Clergy-man to understand the learâ—â—â— Greek and the Writings of their Fathers that was written in it and when in 〈◊〉 Greek Church it-self there was a great corruption in Doctrine Worship and Discipline â—â— well as in the Morals both of the Laity and Clergy the latter whereof were of such 〈◊〉 Spirits as to court and comply with every base Vsuâ—per to get Preferment and 〈◊〉 every thing to his and their Covetousness and Ambition but their quarrels with the 〈◊〉 and the Possessions of their Church Thus much I have thought fit to say in reference to the Baroccian Manuâ—cript of 〈◊〉 I was bound to take some notice in behalf of my own Book which is taken out of best and purest Antiquity that calls for much more deference and veneration froâ— than the thing Collected by the Author of that Tract And if our New Bishops havâ— better Authorities than those they find in him to justifie and support them The Goâ— Peace and Vnity be mercifull unto them and give them Grace to consider that numbers and strâ—â—â— cannot alter the Primitive notion of Schism nor change the sinfull and direfull nature thereoâ— September 29. 1691. FINIS