in this Matter As for this Objection of the Clergy's being aw'd by fear in this Act he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the then Lady Mary which shews the vanity of it p. 142. I am well assur'd saith She speaking of Edward VI. in her Letter to the Council that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it That could an Oecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops unjustly excluded and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first bribed with Mony and promises of Church-praeferment or praeengag'd by Oaths to comply with the Vsurpations of a praetended Spiritual Monarch is not to be accounted a lawful Oecumenical Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such usurpations This is a Thesis which needs no Application I proceed to his Sixth Thesis That the Judgment and consent of some Clergy-men of a Province when they are the lesser part cannot be call'd the judgment and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province This Assertion that a lesser part is not aequall to the Whole is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse and the Reader may hence be convinc'd that our Author doth sometimes travel in the * Educ p. 119. High road of Demonstration But here we desire it may be prov'd either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obey'd rather then the Major part judging contrary to it In the mean time it is easily reply'd that the judgment and consent of some few Bishops * Soave Hist Conc. Tr. p. 153. suppose 48. Bishops and 5. Cardinals giving Canonical Autority to books Apocryphal and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original cannot be esteem'd the judgment and consent of the Catholic Church 7th Thesis That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils or also to a National Synod The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy but because every one must give an account of his own Faith every one is oblig'd to take care that what he submits to the belief of be consistent with his Christianity I am oblig'd to pay all submission to the Church-Autority but the Church having bounds within which she ought to be restrain'd in her Determinations if she transgresses these Limits and acts against that Christianity which she professes to maintain I may rather refuse obedience then forfeit my Christianity If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgment I am answerable for it at Gods Tribunal not because I usurped a right which was never granted me but because I misus'd a Liberty which was indulg'd me This we take to be the case of each private Christian and farther that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right and Worship God as is praescrib'd himself but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions ought to use all those means of discovering the Truth which God has afforded viz. consulting the Pastours of the Church reading the word of God c. And that having discover'd it He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embrac'd but not without the use of that Judgment and Discretion which to them also is allowed If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to enquire on which side God is and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter He is not on the Churches side for her Spiritual Autority Thus a good King of Israel might * 2 King 38.22 take away the High places and Altars and say unto Judah and Jerusalem Ye shall Worship before the Altar at Jerusalem because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses Nor is it any Praejudice against it * 2 King 23.9 That the Priests of the High places refus'd to come up to the Altar at Jerusalem Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute * Mat. 26.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been prov'd to be Felo de se and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have establish'd When the Gallican Church shall have receiv'd all the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils When the Western Patriach shall have rechang'd his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum it may then be seasonable to examine How far National Churches are oblig'd by things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account But I may not omit for the Reader 's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as pag. 38. It is enacted the 32d Hen. 8.26 c. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to God's word and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion c. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believ'd Obey'd c. Vpon which he makes this learned Note Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word i. e. when private Men think them to be so yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrain'd and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word i. e. when the setters forth believe them to be so To obey a thing defin'd according to God's word and to obey a thing defin'd as being according to God's word are Injunctions very different Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have clear'd this point and a School-boy that was to turn this passage into Latin would have known that as is put for which Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus All Decrees and Ordinances which according to Gods word
belonged to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual censures As it standeth in Spiritual censures it is the right of the Church and was practiced by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always ways understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen And by this power saith he c. 4 p. 39. without coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the World reduced to the obedience of Christ by this power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for Three Hundred years together But if it be inquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive power give strength to the Canons of the Church But then what if the Emperors being Christian should take upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith or should use their coactive power against the Canons of the Church Take the answer of another reformed Writer Mr. Thorndike Right of Church 4. c. p. 234. The power of the Church is so absolute saith he and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the Profession of that Faith or the exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with or even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that power which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity tho contrary to the Sovereigns commmands Thus Mr. Thorndike in Right of the Church 4. chap. And like things he saith in his Epilog of the Church of Engl. See there 1. l. 9. c. the Contents whereof touching this Subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the Interest of Secular power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it That the Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity thro Christendome as the Sovereign is of civil Peace thro his Dominions And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible And see 1. l. 20. c. p. 158. Where he saith That He who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict Temporal Penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this Temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i. e those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the Sin of Sacriledge in seizing into its own hands the powers which by Gods Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own Service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence to the doing of it i. e. joyned to the Secular power doing such Act. Now amongst the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these l. 1. c. 16. p. 116. The power of making Laws within themselves of Electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398 and of excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p 385 the power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the communion of Christians in the Service of God and the power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion the power of holding Assemblies of which he speaketh thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 54. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation Founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service of God notwithstanding any Secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike Discourse of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. And thus Dr Fern of the power of Judicature belonging to the Clergy It is confessed saith he on both sides that the power of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend is of divine Institution and that this power must be exercised or administred in the Church by some either Bishops or Presbyters is also confessed to be of divine right Therefore surely no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his dominions the exercise of such Judicature nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's substitutes herein being denyed the assistance of the Civil power are to proceed without it To these I will add what Dr. Taylor hath delivered on the same Subject in Episcopacy asserted and this the rather because this Treatise was published by the Command of so understanding a Prince He after that p. 263. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdom is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any intrenchment on the Royalty hath these passages P. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all
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
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-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
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
sunt prorsus abroganda censuimus Quorum loco en vobis authoritate nostrâ editas leges damus quas a vobis omnibus suscipi coli observari volumus sub nostrae indignationis paenâ mandamus Thus the King Where the meaning of the words decreta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt must be extended to Decrees not only Pontifical but Synodal wherein the Pope presided for the Canon-Law is compiled of both these and over both these did the Kings Supremacy claim Authority in his Dominions and over whatsoever else seemed to him established not by Divine but only by Humane Authority See before § 22.23.27 And also the things changed by him were not the Decrees of Popes but of Councils § 80 By vertue of such a Supremacy he put forth certain Injunctions A. D. 1536. concerning matters of Faith Intitled Articles devised by the Kings Highness to stable Christian quietness and unity amongst the People you may read them set down at large in Mr. Fuller's Church History 5. l. p. 216 for Mr. Fox his Epitome of them conceals many things It is true that these Articles as also the Six Articles published afterward 1539 and the Necessary Doctrine set forth 1543. do for the matter of them as they seem to me discede in nothing from the Doctrines of former Councils nor have nothing in them favouring the reformed Opinions for they allow Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory kneeling and praying before tho not to Images the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Auricular Confession and do not deny Seven Sacraments as some misrelate them because they speak only of Three which Seven Sacraments are all acknowledged and treated on in Necessary Doctrine c. And it cannot be denyed that the Clergy of King Henry also whom he used much more than his Successors King Edward and Queen Elizabeth in his Consultations concerning Religion were except in the introducing of the Kings Supremacy very opposite to the Reformation of other Doctrines or Ceremonies in the Church as appears by the Mala dogmata transcribed out of the Records by Mr. Fuller 5. l. p. 209. to the Number of 67. much agreeing with the Modern Tenents of Puritans Anabaptists and Quakers which Mala Dogmata being by the Lower House of Convocation at this time presented to the Upper House of Bishops to have them condemned occasioned the production of these Injunctions But yet notwithstanding all this for the manner of the Edition of these Injunctions or Articles it is to be noted that the King by vertue of his Supremacy commands them to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judged by him agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God and makes the Clergy therein only his Counsellor and Adviser not a Law-giver See besides the Title his words in the Preface to those Injunctions Which determination debatement and agreement of the Clergy saith he forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good right and true judgment and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God we have caused the same to be published requiring you to accept repute and take them accordingly i. e. as agreeable to Gods Laws and Ordinances So where in these Injunctions he commandeth the Observation of Holy-days he saith We must keep Holy-days unto God in Memory of Him and his Saints upon such days as the Church hath ordained except they be mitigated and moderated by the Assent and Commandment of us the Supream Head to the Ordinaries and then the Subjects ought to obey it such command § 81 By vertue of such a Supremacy he afterward published a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith In putting forth a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Sâ—x A ticles and of the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same for matter of Doctrine not much differing from the Injunctions mentioned before which Book he Entitled A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People adding a Preface thereto in his Royal name to all his faithful and loving Subjects That they might know saith he the better in those dangerous times what to believe in point of Doctrine and how to carry themselves in points of Practice Which Book before the publishing thereof after it saith Dr. Heylin Reform Chur. Engl. § 4. p. 23. was brought into as much Perfection as the said Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Learned Men appointed by the King to this work would give it without the concurrence of the Royal Assent was presented once again to the Kings consideration who very carefully perused and altered many things with his own hand as appears by the Book it self extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library and having so altered and corrected it in some Passages returned it to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Cranmer who bestowed some further pains upon it that being to come forth in the Kings Name and by his Authority there might be nothing in the same that might be justly reprehended For a Preparatory to which Book that so it might come forth with the greater credit the King caused an Act to pass in Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. for the abolishing of all Books and Writings comprising any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that Doctrine which since the Year 1540 is or any time during the Kings life shall be set forth by his Highness Thus Dr. Heylin Which Definitions Decrees and Ordinances so set forth by the King all his Subjects were fully to believe obey and observe 32. Hen. 8. 26. c. See before § 32. And if any Spiritual Person should preach or teach contrary to those Determinations or any other that should be so set forth by his Majesty such Offender the third time contrary to that Act of Parliament was to be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and to suffer pains of death by Burning See before § 34. By which Act therefore amongst other things the holding of the Pope's Supremacy which is contrary to the Doctrine of that Book is declared Heresy And see the like ordained by Parliament concerning the Six Articles in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. where it is Enacted That every Person that doth preach teach declare argue against any of the Six Articles being thereof convicted shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick § 82 And thus Heresy now belonging to the Kings Cognizance as the Church's Supream Head became also by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joyned with the Kings a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King 's Of their Cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but the adjudging of it And their Vote herein was joyned at least with that of the Clergy if not in Authority preferred before it as appears by these and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14 c. mentioned before § 34 and in the two Proviso's of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned
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
the wiser sort resolved that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome lest they being Subjects should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince and take up the banner of Rebellion Thus Cambden Now the contention about the manner of disputing which Cambden omits was what side should speak last which the Bishops because of their dignity desired to do after having observed Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked But this the Queens Council would not yield to them the first agreement being pretended contrary and so that conference ceased After this Disputation followed the suppressing sect 179. n. 1. The Regâ—l Suâ—remancy and all that K. Edw. hâ—d done in the Refâ—rmâ—tioâ— now re-established by the Queen and Paâ—liament of the Mass of the Popes Supremacy of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigor by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy in all those spiritual Jurisdictions which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary and upon pretence that the Crown could not be supported with such honor as it ought to be if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembred from it all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary Besides which because there were many Impropriations and Tithes by dissolution of Religious Houses invested in the Crown the Queen kept several Bishopricks void till she had taken into her hands what Castles Mannors and Tenements she thought good returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes but this an extended instead of the other old rent Bishopricks being thus kept void also in following times one after another upon several occasions saith Dr. Heylin till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it See his History of Queen Elizabeth p. 120 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. c. sect 179. n. 2. Again Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer but altered first in some things by eight Learned men all of the reformed party and non-Bishops to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen In which review saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Elizabeth p. 111. there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. see before § 160. The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it The Body of our Lord c. Take and eat lest saith that Author under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers Likewise the Rubrick about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground And to come up closer saith he to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood as also the Altar in the Queens own Chappel was furnished with rich Plate two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124. that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus Musick retained in the Church Festivals observed c. Thus Dr. Heylin And some such thing likewise was observed if you will give me leave to digress a little by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion both concerning Real Presence For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words Since as the Holy Scriptures testify Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the world It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out and concerning Church Authority and Church Ceremonies For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days being taken with the Geneva-way were when they returned great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Eâ—â—land and of church-Church-authority in general therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ' The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence Insomuch as when one of her Divines see Heylin's Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 124. had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complyed so far as to resort to the Mass see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist in answer to a Priest desiring her judgment therein are well known 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies and great Opposer of the Puritans see before § 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist p. 144. c. several of whom tho in such a scarcity of Divines she preferred in the beginning of her Reign as Sampson to be Dean of Christ Church Whittington to be Dean of Durham Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge c Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her And when Alexander Nowel Dean of Pauls had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression and to return unto his Text. Heyl. Hist. p. 124. But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queens days in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad and by Peter Martyr and others here at home and that tho some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived
may be dissolv'd by the Prudence of Men that as they were erected by leave and confirmation of Princes so they may be dissolv'd by the same that the Bishop of Romes Patriarchate doth not extend beyond the sub-urbicary Churches that we are without the reach of his Jurisdiction and therefore that the power claim'd over us is an Invasion that did not Popes think fit to dispence with themselves for Perjury having sworn to keep inviolably the Decrees of the Eight first General Councils they would not in plain opposition to the a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 7. Here the Council decrees that Ancient Customs should prevail that the Priviledges of all Churches in their distinct Provinces should be kept inviolable We desire the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate over the Britannic Churches should be prov'd to be an Antient Custom and if not that the Priviledges of these Churches may be preserv'd Nicene and b The Fathers of the Ephesine Council having decree'd that the Cyprian Prelates should hold their rights untouchâ—d and unviolated according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and the Ancient Customs Ordaining their own Bishop and that the Bishop of Antioch who then pretended Jurisdiction over them as the Bishop of Rome now doth overs us should be excluded add farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Eph. Can. 8. Let the same be observ'd in other Diocesses and all Provinces every where That no Bishop occupy and other Province which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors If any do occupy any Province or subject it by force let him restore it Now we plead the Cyprian Priviledges and desire we may be exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome till it is prov'd that He or His Predecessors did from the Beginning exercise any power in these Churches Ephesine Canons pretend to any Jurisdiction over us That they so invading ought to be judg'd by a free Oecumenical Synod if such an one could be had but that this Remedy being praecluded us Each National Church has liberty to free her self from such Usurpation that the Church of England pleads the benefit of this Right and her Sovereigns having power to transfer Bishopricks might remove the Patriarchate from Rome to Canterbury and justly exclude any forreign Prelate from Jurisdiction within their Territories But that the power claim'd by the Pope however mollified by the Novices of that Church is more then Patriarchal and that it is not our Rule which this Author so much dislikes but Pope Leo's the c Ep. 54. 1st that propria perdit qui indebita concupiscit This plea of a Western Patriarchate is fatally confounded by that one plain Period of Bishop d True Dif part 2. Bilson As for his Patriarchate by God's law he hath none in this Realm for Six Hundred years after Christ he had none for the last 6 Hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none Above or against the Princes Sword he can have none to the subversion of the Faith and Oppression of his Brethren he ought to have none He must seek farther for Subjection to his Tribunal this land oweth him none So much for the first branch of this Thesis the 2d is that as the Prince cannot eject or depose the Clergy so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceas'd without the concurrence of the Clergy If by the concurrence of the Clergy he means that the Person assign'd by the Prince to any sacred office cannot execute it till he be ordain'd by the Clergy No one will deny it Or if he think that the Ordainer ought to lay hands on none but whom he esteems fit for the discharge of so sacred an Office here also we agree with him But how doth it follow that because Ordination which is consecrating Men to the work of the Holy Ministry is the proper Office of the Clergy the Prince may not recommend to the Church a fit Person so to be consecrated or assign to the Person already consecrated the place where he shall perform that Holy Work As for the Canons by him alledg'd they being Humane Institutions are not of Aeternal Obligation but changeable according to the different State of the Church If the 31st Apostolick Canon which excommunicates all who gain Benefices by the Interest of Secular Princes and forbids the People to communicate with them still oblige then we are exempted from Communion with the Bishop of Rome How comes the latter part of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which concerns the Election of Bishops still to be valid and the former part which limits the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs so long since to be null Why must the C. of England accept the 2d Nicene Council in matters of Discipline which the * Petr. De Marc. l. 6. c. 25. §. 8. Gallican Church rejected in matters of Faith Were the Canon of the Laodicean Council here cited pertinent to the purpose as it is not it being directed only against popular Elections yet why must that be indispensable when another Canon which enumerates the Canonical books of Scripture has so little Autority It is plain the manners of Elections have varied much in the divers States of the Church The Apostles and Apostolical Persons nominated their Successors afterwards Bishops were chose by the Clergy and the people after by the Bishops of the Province the Metropolitan ratifying the choice In process of time Emperors when become Christian interpos'd and constituted and confirm'd even Popes themselves * Marca de Conc. Imp. Sac cap. 8. Nor is this Power of Princes repugnant to Holy Scripture in which we find that * 1 King c. 2. v. 35. King Solomon put Zadok the Priest in the Room of Abiathar That * 2 Chr. 19.11 Jehosaphat set Amariah the Chief-Priest over the People in all matters of the Lord That He * v. 8. set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chief Fathers of Israel for the Judgment of the Lord and for Controversies As for his alledg'd Inconvenience that if temporal Governors can place and displace the Clergy they will make the Churches Synods to state divine matters according to their own minds and so the Church will not be praeserv'd incorrupt in her Doctrine and Discipline They who maintain the just rights of the Prince are not obliged to defend the abuse of them there is perhaps no power ordain'd for our good which may not be perverted to mischief were this right of placing and displacing left to a Patriarch or a Synod yet either of these might so manage their trust that a corrupted majority of Clergy might state divine matters according to their own mind and so the Doctrines of Christ be chang'd for the Traditions of men But to these objected Injuries which the Church may suffer from a bad Prince
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
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
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
a Lay Vicar-General and p. 20 That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use than afterward in times well ballanced and established meaning those following times wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince And as for these days of King Edward what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people but the new Divines of Edward acknowledged and enstated in the King and Parliament may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper when in Prison sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary Episcopis Decanis wherein he cites them before the High Court of Parliament â—ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies i. e for so far as any man can be Judge In this Letter after having urged Deut. 17.8 because of the mention made there of a Judge besides the Priest Voâ— omnes saith he obtestor ut causam hanc vel aliam quamcunqne ob religionem ortam inter nos vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro excelso senatu sese religiosè animo submisso judicio authoritati Verbi Dei subjiciat Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat ut palam e. c lites inter nos componantur idque coram competenti judice Quid hoc est igitur Quo jure contenditis Vultis nostri causae nostrae testes accusatores judices esse Nos tantùm legem evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus ut coram competenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium Non vos fugit quomodo publicè palam in facie ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni in summâ curià Parliamenti veritas verbi Dei per fidos doctos pios ministros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit Quae quocunque titulo tempore universalitate splenduit ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari per proceres heroas ac doctos hujus regni erat mandatum statim evanuit c. Here that Bishop professeth when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion not the Synod but the Parliament the competent Judge therein and urgeth if I rightly understand him the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgment which as it was then affected would have cast him It seemeth Not by that he faith Tantum legem Dei in causâ religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him a Prisoner for this Controversy By the Clergy's No. By the Parliament's No for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter By the Scripture then its self But this is urged by both sides to speak for them and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament than it did before So that in nominating no other final Judge the Bishops Request here in summe is that his Cause may never be tryed by any Judge CHAP. V. King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary § 48 AFter King Edward's Death in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign a Princess otherwise principled The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Popes Supremacy re-acknowledged all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns by Prince by State or by Clergy in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church in innovating the Forms of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments of Ordination of Church Rites and Discipline and Jurisdiction in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions and composing new ones All was now by an equal Authority of Prince Clergy and State reversed repealed ejected and Religion only rendred much poorer as for Temporals put into the same course which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth before a new Wife or a new Title was by him thought on So that any new Reformation to come afterward must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure being now by the like Authority defaced and thrown down § 49 This Restitution of things made in Queen Mary's days will chiefly appear to you in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap where the ancient Form of Divine Service c used in Henry the Eighths days is restored as being the Service saith the Act which we and our Fore-fathers found in this Church of England left unto us by the Authority of the Catholick Church And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church and several Acts of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws c or introduced new Forms of Divine Service of Election and Ordination of Bishops and Priests are repealed And in 1 and 2. Mar. 6. chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Hereticks first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again and the Statutes to this purpose which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy are revived § 50 And in 1 and 2. Mar. 8. c where the Pope's Supremacy is re-acknowledged when also as Fox observes p. 1296. the Queen's Stile concerning Supremacy was changed and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted as also Bonner Bishop of London being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Arch-Bishop did omit in his Writs to the Clergy Authoritate Illustrissimae c legitime suffulttus In which Statute also the whole Nation by their Representative in Parliament ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism repealing the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's time against the Popes Supremacy and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy set down before § 22. and § 23 whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased to reform Errors Heresies c i e. to do the Offices of the Clergy In which Statute also the Clergy in a distinct Supplication beginning Nos Episcopi Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati c calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights Jurisdictions Liberties taken from her by the injustice of former times The words are Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus
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
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
Pope did also assume unto her self the Stile and Title of Queen of England as Cosin and next Heir to Queen Mary deceased quartering the Arms thereof upon all her Plate and Escutcheons Only let me first mind you this concerning Queen Maries Reign that lyeth between That whatever the Reformation had built upon any Synodal vote under Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth was now revoked and demolished under Queen Mary by the like Synods of a legal Clergy as is shewed before § 52. The Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters was re-acknowledged by this National Synod now not due to the Civil but to the Ecclesiastical Chief Governor the Bishop of Rome the Patriarch of the West yet not challenged by him in so high a degree as these Princes used it The Six Articles established by Synod in Henry the Eighth's days as also the ancient Church Liturgy ancient Form of Ordination ancient way of Tryal of Hereticks ancient Canons c were now by the like Synodal power again restored and re-inforced See before § 48. So that the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth was to begin upon a new foundation without grounding any plea upon any Synodal Act or consent of the Clergy made in King Henry or King Edward s days either concerning the new Supremacy or the new Liturgy or the new 42 Articles of Religion c since all these were by the same Synodal authority in Queen Mary's days desclaimed Here seemeth no evasion If we accept the decrees of later Synods rather than of former then Queen Mary's Synods will void King Henry's and King Edward's But if of former Synods rather than of later then the Synods of Henry the Eighth and of former times for the Six Articles c. will void King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's too § 172 And here first concerning the course which Queen Elizabeth took in repairing the Reformation defaced by Queen Mary Dr. Heylin speaks thus of it in general Reform Justified p. 37. In Queen Elizabeth's time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy She went that way to work in her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Jewish State and many of the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by God And to that end she published her Injunctions An. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. all tending unto the Reformation with the advice and counsel of the Metropolitan him that was first ordained so by her appointment and some other godly Prelates who were then about her by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus the Doctor The brief of which is That Queen Elizabeth did the Church-work at first her self without any Synodal authority of the Church-men as not being assured of their affection till she had setled new Church-men according to her mind and then she did Church-work by Church-men § 173 This testimony premised concerning her proceedings in general Hâ—r calling of a Syâ—od which declareth against the Râ—formation Now to mention some particulars which are of the most note In the beginning of her Reign the Queen together with a Parliament called also a Synod in which Bonner Bishop of London in the vacancy of the Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury was President and Dr. Harpsfield was Prolocutor for the inferiour Clergy But this Synod continued in the former resolutions made under Queen Mary and remained inflexible to the Queens inclinations and the Reformation nay declared against it The full relation of which Synod I will give you out of Mr. Fuller's History 9. l. p. 54. who copyed it out of Lib. Synod 1559. because tho somewhat long yet it is very remarkable The Convocation at this time saith he was very small and silent For as it is observed in nature when one twin is of an unusual strength and bigness the other born with him is weak and dwindleth away So here this Parliament being very active in matters of Religion the Convocation younger brother thereunto was little employed less regarded Yet in it in the lower House of Convocation were passed over certain Articles of Religion which they tendred to the Bishops that they might present them to the Parliament The Bishops likewise by their President Bishop Bonner presented them to the Lord Keeper Likewise in the tenth Session of this Convocation an account was given in by both the Vniversities in an Instrument under the hand of a publick Notary wherein they both did concur to the truth of the foresaid Articles the last only excepted § 174 The Articles together with their Preface are these which saith he we here both transcribe and translate copyed by me out of the Original considering they are the last in this kind that ever were represented in England by a legal Corporation in defence of the Popish Religion § 175 Reverendi in Christo Patres ac Domini Colendissimi Quoniam famâ publicâ referente ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit multa religionis christianae dogmata publico unanimi gentium christianarum consensu hactenus recepta probata atque ab Apostolis ad nos usque concorditer per manus deducta praesertim Articulos infra scriptos in dubium vocari Hinc est quod nos Cantuariensis Provinciae inferior secundarius Clerus in uno Deo sic disponente ac Seren Dominae nostrae Reginae Decani Capituli Cant. mandato Brevi Parliament ac monitione ecclesiasticâ solitâ declatatâ id exigente convenientes partium nostrarum esse existimavimus tum nostrae tum eorum quorum curae nobis committitur saluti omnibus quibus poterimus modis prospicere Quocirca majorum nostrorum exemplis commoti qui in similia saepè tempora inciderunt fidem quam in Articulis infra scriptis veram esse credimus ex animo profitemur ad Dei laudem honorem officiique aliarum nostrae curae commissarum animarum exonerationem praesentibus duximus publicè afferendam affirmantes sicut Deus nos in die Judicii adjuvet asserentes 1. Quod in Sacramento Altaris virtute Christi verbo suo a Sacerdote debitè prolato assistentis praesens est realiter sub speciebus Panis Vini naturale Corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Mariâ Item naturalis ejus Sanguis 2. Item Quod post Consecrationem non remanet substantia panis vini neque ulla alia substantia nisi substantia Dei Hominis 3. Item
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
onely from his Presbytership See Fox p. 1604. and not his Episcopacy For saith he We do not acknowledge you for a Bishop Which had he understood quoad Excercitium and not also quoad Characterem then neither so ought he to have acknowledged him for or degraded him as a Presbyter he being quoad excercitium no more the one then the other Now the reason why he acknowledged him no Bishop quoad Characterem was I conceive upon supposition that Ridley was not ordained by the old Form because much offence being taken at that old Form we may conjecture by the reason given in the Preface of the Statute recited before § 42. that also before the new set-form established there were in Ordinations some varyings from the old The same you may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old Form Bishop by the new and therefore degraded in Queen Mary's days only as a Priest Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new Form and therefore in his condemnation not degraded at all but treated as a meer Laick In these days likewise Bishop Bonner writ a Book call'd A profitable and necessary Doctrine c. wherein he contendeth See F. a S. Clara Eâ—chirid p. 93. that the new devised Ordination of Ministers was unsufficient and void because no authority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ but both the Ordainer and Ordained despised and impugned not onely the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass but also the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar Lastly 't is probable that Mason and others Art of Edw. 6.28 Art to whom this dispensation could not be unknown and was so serviceable for this Controversy would not have left it unmentioned could they have made any such construction thereof as Bishop Bramhal doth 2. In general those who are truly ordained yet if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church their true Orders as to the exercise of them are unlawful and so unless a Church be first cleared from Heresy and Schisme these Orders are not rightly employed in it And those also who receive the Sacraments from their Ministery do tho truly yet fruitlesly receive them I mean so many as by their obstinacy or ignorance culpable are guilty of the same Heresy or Schisme because these do not receive with the Sacrament gratiam sanctificationis or charitatem or jus ad regnum caelorum thro such their sin without which Charity any other fruition of the Sacrament is nothing worth Of which thus St. Austine De Baptis 7. l. 52. c. against the Donatists concerning their Priests giving and others receiving the Sacrament of Baptisme from them Habent potestatem dandi baptismum quamquam inutiliter habeant accipitur ab eis etiam cum inutile est accipientibus quod ut fiat utile ab haeresi vel schismate recedendum est 54. c. Infructuose atque inutiliter tradunt baptismum tales talibus in eo quod regnum Dei non possidebunt Haereticis correctis baptisma non incipit adesse quod deerat sed prodesse quod inerat And thus the Schools Haereticus i. e. manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisus excommunicatus c. non amittit potestatem conferendi Sacramentum sed licentiam utendi hâc potestate ideo quidem confert sed tamen peccat conferendo similiter ille qui ab eo accipit Sacramentum sic non percipit rem Sacramenti i e. gratiam sanctificationis nisi forte per ignorantiam excusetur Si sunt manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisi ex hoc ipso quod aliquis accipit Sacramenta ab eis peccat per hoc impeditur ne effectum Sacramenti consequatur Thus Aquinas p. 3.64 q 9.a. And then what great difference in the giver of such Sacraments not to have true Orders and not to have the power to use them Or in the receiver of the Sacraments not to have true Sacracraments and not to be benefited by them Excepting only such who living in such a separate Society are by their invincible ignorance excused from fault to whom it is granted that such Sacraments are effectual When they return to the unity of the Church indeed then his true Orders formerly received become to the one usable and the true Sacraments formerly received to the other profitable But this is in effect all one as if then the one first de novo received Orders § 193 3. and the other the Sacraments Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Câ—â—â—â— 3. But again tho I do not here state the question Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops Yet their Introduction and Ordination if valid seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful Because they came many of them into the places of others unjustly expelled 2. Because neither the major part nor any save one of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination See Thes 3. §. 6.7 which consent is a thing most necessary for preservation of the Church both in true Doctrine and in Unity Of which you have heard but now Mr. Thorndike's Testimony Who in the same place applying his Doctrine to this very fact goeth on thus Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that rule wherein the unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reformation had been supported in that power which by the premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass 3. Because to prevent all division and faction as likewise to
profess the contrary nay will say that the succession of the Clergy shall keep teach and maintain our Lord's laws to the end of the world This question he asketh not he solveth not as writing against the Presbyterians who will not ask it him But what can he say Shall the Clergy judge They deny it to be the Lord's law what he against their consent would restore Shall the Prince judge But this is most unreasonable that the judgment of a Laick shall be preferred before the whole succession of the Clergy in Spiritual manters And what mischief will come hereupon if he judge amiss And here let me set before him his own rules Right of Chur. 4. c. p. 235. Such a difference falling out saith he i. e. between the secular power and the Bishops so that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right as how can it be clear to particular persons which is not to their guides in those matters and which is not to other particular persons who also think the contrary clear it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns But if this his answer that the Prince may suppress the Apostolical power of the Clergy when this goeth against other our Lords or the Apostles Laws be unsatisfying to the great difficulty he proposeth I know not what other can possibly be returned to that his objection And I wonder that this considerative man who holds not the Pope to be Anti-Christ or the Hierarchy of the Church to be the followers of Anti-Christ should make such a supposition as this that the Apostolical Succession of the Clergy should oppose our Lords or the Apostles laws so far as that we shall depend on the Laity to restore them and to protect Christianity against their Guides § 205 The fifth is Dr. Heylin Whose testimonies justifying King Edward and Queen Elizabeth's reforming by their own sole authority Of Doctor Heylin or only with the advice of some few of their Clergy where they perceived that the rest would not comply See before § 129. Yet this their reforming I have shewed to have been for some part of it in matters of Doctrine and Faith To which former testimonies I will add here Reform Jâ—stisted p. 86. 1. First what he saith concerning the Clergy's not having any lawful power to conclude any thing in Spiritual matters that may bind King or Subject till the Royal authority confirmeth it contrary to the first Thesis It is true saith he the Clergy in their Convocation can do nothing now but as their doings are confirmed by the Kings authority And I conclude it stands with reason that it should be so For since the two Houses of Parliament can conclude nothing which may bind either King or Subject in their civil rights until they be made good by the royal assent so neither is it fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters what not in such as Prince and People grant to intrench upon no civil Right until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them What if such supreme Governor be an Heretick an Arrian an Anabaptist c Ib. p. 84.2 2. What he saith concerning the King of England's having lawful power to act without his Clergy as the Clergy having conferred on him all their power which they formerly enjoyed in their own capacity Which was Philpot's Plea recited before § 168. contrary to the Second Thesis The Kings of England saith he had a further right as to this particular which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of recognition or concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme authority not only of confirming their Synodal Acts not to be put in execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that power which firmly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this To reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel case in the Roman Empire in which the supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they called Lex Regia they transferred all their power on Caesar and the following Emperors Which Law being passed the Edicts of the Emperor were as binding as the Senatus-consulta had been before Whence came that memorable Maxime in Justinians Institutes Quod Principi placuerit legis habet vigorem The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for the Supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after following they transferred that power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the power of the Convocation so was it as good in law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it And tho in most of their proceedings toward Reformation the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them or could assemble without trouble yet was there no necessity that all or the greatest part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose no more than it was anciently for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church or for the godly Kings of Judah to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Levites before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses which were crept in amongst them Thus Dr. Heylin p. 84. § 206 Indeed elsewhere he seemeth to put some limitations to the Prince's acting in such matters without or against their Clergy but then these limitations are such as that the reforming Prince's acts have transgressed his Rules To this purpose he saith p. 80 81. That whereas Reformation may be first in corruption of manners or abuses in Government secondly in matters practical thirdly in points of Doctrine 1. First That if the things to be reformed be either corruptions in manners or neglect of publick duties to Almighty God be abuses either in Government or in the parties governing the King may reform this himself by his sole authority tho the whole body of the Clergy or the greatest part thereof should oppose him in it 2. That if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church the King consulting with so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Clergy as he thinks fit to call
then a Church under persecution until Moses was rais'd up by God a Lawful Magistrate over them The cases are alike for all the world No Magistrate did assemble them in Aegypt and good reason why they had none to do it But this was no barr but when Moses arose authoriz'd by God had the Trumpets by God deliver'd to him He might take them keep them use them for that end for which God gave them to assemble the Congregation Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh or Constantine then Nero See also a Field of the Church l. 5. c. 52. Dr Field His Third Thesis is That the Secular Prince cannot b Soave Hist of Conc. Tr. Pag. 77. depose or eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy nor introduce others into the place of the ejected But the Quaestion here is not Whether the Prince can eject any of the Clergy from the Exercise of their Office but Whether he can depose any for not Exercising it While the Clergy faithfully discharge their Office the Prince ought to protect them and if for this they suffer no doubt but they are Martyrs But it is possible they may abuse their power and then it is to be enquir'd Whether Civil Laws may not inhibit them the Vse of it This Author holds the Negative and tells us 1st They cannot eject them at pleasure without giving any cause thereof But he doth not pretend that the Reforming Princes ever ejected any without a Cause given And therefore he adds 2ly Neither may Princes depose them for any Cause which concerns things Spiritual but with this Limitation without the consent of the Clergy I could wish he had here told us what he ment by things Spiritual For things as well as Persons Spiritual are of great Extent d Pope Paul the 3d told the Duke of Mantua that it is the Opinion of the Doctors that Priest's Concubines are of Ecclsiastical Jurisdiction But he gives us his reason for his assertion Because it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam as in Personam and the Prince as has been mention'd in the 1st Thesis has no Autority to judge such Causes purely Spiritual Now the power denied to the Prince in the 1st Thesis is to determine matters of Faith But may not the Prince judge whether an Ecclesiastick deserves Deprivation without determining a Matter of Faith May not he judge according to what has been already determin'd by the Church Or may not he appoint such Delegates as can determine matters of Faith Or are all the Causes for which a Clergy-man may be depriv'd merely Spiritual By Virtue of this Thesis he proves the Ejection of the Western Patriarch unlawful pag. 37. Now was not this Matter of Faith already determine by the Clergy Had they not unanimously decreed That he had no more Autority here then any other forreign Bishop And can the King be said here to have acted without the consent of the Clergy And yet that matter of fact is applied to this Thesis As for the Ejection of the Bishops in King Edward's time is not that confest to have been for not acknowledging the Regal Supremacy pag. 70. But this was a matter which wanted no new Determination for the Church-Autority had decided it in their Synod in King Henry's Reign But it is said the Judges were not Canonical as being the King's Commissioners part Clergy part Laity But neither was the cause purely Canonical for denying the Supremacy was not only an infringment of the Canon but also a Violation of an Act of Parliament As for the Bishops Bonner and Gardiner they were accus'd for not asserting the Civil power of the King in his Nonage Nor do they plead Conscience for not doing it but deny the Matter of Fact * Burn. His Ref. part 2. l. 1. p. 127. 165. The same Objections were then made against their Deprivation as are reassum'd by this Author now and therefore it may suffice to return the same answers That the Sentence being only of Deprivation from their Sees it was not so entirely of Ecclesiastical Censure but was of a mix'd nature so that Lay-men might joyn in it since they had taken Commissions from the King for their Bishopricks by which they held them only during the Kings pleasure they could not complain of their Deprivation which was done by the King's Autority Others who look'd farther back remembred that Constantine the Emp. had appointed Secular Men to enquire into some things objected to Bishops who were call'd Cognitores or Triers and such had examin'd the business of Coecilian Bishop of Carthage even upon an Appeal after it had been tried by several Synods and given Judgment against Donatus and his party The same Constantine had also by his Autority put Eustathius out of Antioch Athanasius out of Alexandria and Paul out of Constantinople and though the Orthodox Bishops complain'd of their particulars as done unjustly at the false suggestion of the Arrians yet they did not deny the Autority of the Emperors in such cases Ibid. p. 127. But neither is the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury by this Author allow'd to be a proper Judge that because He did not Act by his Canonical Superiority in the Church but by the Autority he joyntly with the rest receiv'd from the King As if he had ever the less the power of a Metropolitan because He was also the King's Commissioner By this way of arguing the Decrees of Oecumenical Councils will be invalid because they were call'd to determine Controversies by the command of Emperors But how Uncanonical soever King Edward's Bishops are said to have been He does not except against Queen Mary's Bishops tho' they in depriving the Reformed acted by Commission from the Queen As for the Bishops ejected in Q. Elizabeth's time it has been already said it was for a Civil cause i. e. refusing the Oath of Supremacy which why it should be lawful in her Father's time and unlawful in her's why it should be contriv'd by Roman Catholics in that Reign and scrupled by the same Roman Catholics in this Why it should be inoffensive when exprest in larger terms and scandalous when mitigated whence on a sudden the Refusers espied so much Obliquity in that Oath which they had all took before probably either as Bishops or Priests in the reigns of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th whence this change of things proceeded unless from secret intimations from Rome or their own Obstinacy will not easily be conjectur'd As for his Note that what is sayd of the other Clergy may be said likewise of the Patriarch for any Autority which he stands posses'd of by such Ecclesiastical Canons as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government He has been often told by our Authors that Patriarchs are an Humane Institution That as they were erected so they
London b Lord Herbert p. 402. Being afterwards made Bishop of Duresme he was sent with others to perswade Katherine to acquiesce in the Divorce he us'd several Arguments to convince her of the justice of it She urging his former Opinion in favour of her cause he replyed that he had only pleaded for the amplitude and fulness of the Bull but that the Consummation of the former Marriage had now been judicially prov'd the second Marriage declar'd by the Sentences of the Universities incestuous and contrary to the Law of God and therefore by the Pope's Bull however ample indispensable Which is a Demonstration against what this Author asserts that Tonstal was one who justified the second Marriage tho' the former had been Consummate Sanders his diligence in reckoning up those who wrote for the Queen's cause we do not question but we much doubt his Veracity It requir'd an extraordinary diligence to find a book written by a c Sand. p. 53. Bishop of Bristol 13 Years before ever there was such a Bishop-rick But should we grant Sanders's full tale of almost twenty these are neither to be compar'd in Number nor Autority with those who wrote against it An d Burn. Hist V. 1. p. 106. hundred books were shewn in Parliament written for the Divorce by Divines and Lawyers beyond Sea besides the Determinations of twelve the most celebrated Universities of Europe To which might have been added the e See the Abstract of what was written for the Divorce Burn. V. 1. p. 97. Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers the Opinions of the Scool-men the Autority of the Infallible Pope who in our Author's Introduction granted a Bull of Divorce and the Sentence of one more Infallible then He the a Lev. 18.16 and c. 20.21 Author of the Pentateuch This was agreed on all sides that Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impedimentis jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt This was not so Universally agreed as our Author would perswade us for those b Burn. Hist Vol. 1. p. 103. who wrote for the Queen's Cause pleaded that the Pope's power of dispencing did reach farther then to the Laws of the Church even to the Laws of God for he dayly dispenced with the breaking of Oaths and Vows tho' that was expresly contrary to the c With us the third second Commandment And when the Question was debated in the Convocation One d Id. ibid. p. 129. voted the Prohibition to be Moral but yet Dispensable Others gather'd the Law in Levit. 18.16 dispensable in some cases from the express Dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5 But on the other side it was then answer'd e Ibid. p. 105. that the Provision about marrying the Brother's Wife only proves the ground of the Law is not in it's own Nature immutable but may be dispensed with by God in some cases but because Moses did it by divine Revelation it does not follow that the Pope can do it by his Ordinary Autority For the general Judgment of the Learned and particularly for the Vniversities after you have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert See what the Act of Parliament 1º Mariae saith of them What the general judgment of the Learned was has been intimated already What were the Sentiments of the Vniversities will best be learnt from their solemn Determinations After I have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford I am very well satisfied that I have been abus'd and that the rather when I see what is said by Lord Herbert a Lord Herbert p. 352. who on purpose publishes an Original Instrument to confute the lie of Sanders who had call'd the Resolution of our Universities in a sort surreptitious As for the Act of Queen Mary it was the Act of a Queen in her own cause and the 25 Hen. 8.22 c. is as great a proof of the Lawfulness of the Divorce as this is of the Unlawfulness of it What censures were past upon this Act when made may be seen in b Burn. Hist V. 2. p. 254. Dr. Burnet The Act mentioning certain bare and untrue conjectures upon which Archbishop Cranmer founded his sentence of Divorce This Author will have these relate to the consummation of the Marriage of Katherine with Arthur But this is but a bare conjecture of his and very probably untrue For Cranmer c See the Abstract of the grounds of the Divorce Burn. V. 1. Coll. p. 95. thinking the Marriage of a Brother's Wife unlawful and the Essence of all Marriage to consist not in the carnalis copula but in the conjugal pact might upon these Principles conclude the Marriage with Henry unlawful tho' that with Arthur had been prov'd not consummate and therefore need not build on any conjectures concerning the Consummation Tho' had he founded his judgment upon that supposition It if I may so speak with due reverence to an Act of Parliament was neither a bare conjecture nor untrue As for the Hesitancy of the German-Protestant Divines to declare the Divorce lawful I cannot conceive why it is urg'd by this Author who certainly doth not prefer the Judgment of these Protestant-Doctors to the contrary Determination of the Roman-Catholic Universities It has been observ'd upon this Author's writings that he is no great Friend of either Communion of which We have here a very good Confirmation when to prove the illegality of K. Henry's Divorce he declines the Autority of the Roman-Catholic Universities as Mercenary and appeals to the German Divines whom he will have to be of his Opinion Now what can be a greater blemish to the Roman Communion then that those great Bodies which may justly be suppos'd it's greatest Strength should so cheaply barter away their Consciences Or what more Honourable testimony given to the Leaders of the Reformation then that their judgment should be appeal'd to in an instance which makes it appear that their Integrity could not be so far sway'd by the prospect of a common reform'd Interest as their Adversaries are said to have been by the scandalous temptations of a Bribe But this is not a single instance how much more he regards his Hypothesis then the honour of his Communion Thus below § 122 to prove that King Edward's Reformation was not Universal he accuses those Clergy that did comply of Hypocrisy and to shew there were some non-complyers he instances in the frequent Rebellions of the Romanists which he saith would not have been had they not been justified to them by the Clergy The most bitter Adversary to the Church of Rome would wish her such Advocates I have made this Digression to shew you the diversity of Opinions which was in this difficult Matter that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgment and how the several Interests
of it was allow'd to have no power in Causes Ecclesiastical Nor is the Clergy which here reverses repeals and ejects less liable to Exceptions For the first change was not of Religion but of the Pastors and the Reforming Bishops were ejected before the Reformation c See them reckon'd by this Author §. 53. Thirteen Prelates we find depriv'd to make room for a reversing Hierarchy and of d Bur. V. 2. p. 276. Sixteen-thousand Inferior Clergy-men as they were then computed 12000 turn'd out for committing the unpardonable Sin of Matrimony As for the Autority of the State i. e. the Parliament it was none we were told in the 2 former Reigns and sure it had no advantage in this if it be remembred how a Burn. V. 2. p. 252. Elections were manag'd and how predominant Spanish Gold was The 4 next Paragraphs give us an account of the Restitution of things made in Q. Mary's days § 49 50.51.52 which I allow and only desire the Reader to carry a long with him what has been hinted of the manner of it § 53 Paragraph the 53d questions whether this Clergy in Q. Mary's days were a lawfull Clergy §. 54. ad §. 65. And the succeeding pages endeavour their Vindication The Bishops ejected by Q. Mary he has numbred from Fox but least we should have too much truth together has took care to qualifie it with his Paratheses Fox mentioning Hooper ejected from Worcester it is added he might have said from Glocester too for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the 6th 's time held both these Sees together in Commendam Our Author might have spar'd this Observation from Sanders had he consulted the b Burn. V. 2. App. p. 396. Appendix to the History of the Reformation where this lie of Sanders is confuted Hooper was first made Bishop of Glocester which before King Henry the 8th 's time had been part of the Bishoprick of Worcester In King Edward's time these Sees were reunited so that Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had for some Years been divided into two He only enjoy'd the revenue of Glocester For Worcester Latimer for Non-conformity to the Six Articles had been ejected out of it or for fear resign'd it yet for what reason I know not could not in King Edward's time be restor'd to it This again is a transcript from the inexhaustible a Sand. p. 181. Sanders Latimer b Bur. V. 2. App. p. 385. 392. Hist V. 2. p. 95. was not ejected but freely resign'd his Bishoprick upon passing the Six Articles with which he could not comply with a good Conscience In King Edward's time the House of Commons interpos'd to repossess him but he refus'd to accept of any Preferment Taylor was remov'd from Lincoln by death not by the Queen as appears from Fox p. 1282. Q. Mary's c Bur. V. 2. Coll p 257. Commission for displacing the Bishops is extant amongst which Taylor is one Fox positively saith He was depriv'd He saith indeed in the place cited that he died but not that his Death was before his Deprivation Having given us this Catalogue of the ejected thus adulterated with his false mixtures he desires us in Vindication of the just Autority of Q. Mary's Clergy to take notice That the Ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's days was not the First but Second Ejection the first being made in King Edward's time when Gardiner Bonner Tonstal Day Heath Vesy were remov'd from their Sees But here we have a Supernumerary put in to enhance the Catalogue Vesy d Godw. Catal. of Bishops was not depriv'd but did resign His Character in History is so scandalous that he ought to have been depriv'd and therefore it had been pardonable to have guess'd that he was but it was unlucky to assert it Probably he saith some others were remov'd from their Sees To which it may be enough to answer probably not I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any An Accurate Writer in his Sense is one who favours his own Cause and is careful to insert a necessary Supplement of his own where the History wants it His admir'd Sanders is in this Sense accurate enough but not so accurate as our Author could have wish'd Nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbring the change of Clergy under King Edward as he doth that under Q. Mary As for the Bishops which are the Clergy here meant Fox mentions the Deprivation of all that were depriv'd and it is because He had not this Author's diligence that he named no more Something may be conjectur'd from those general words of his For the most part the Bishops were chang'd and the dumb Prelate compel'd to give place to others that would preach Mr. Fox was no great Master of Style nor rigorous in his Expressions from which our Author would make advantage But it is a sign his cause is desperate when he is forc'd thus to build upon empty conjectures The Deprivation of Bishops is not a matter of so little importance that our Historians should take no notice of it but amongst them all We find no more Depriv'd then have been mention'd Dr. Heylin and Dr. Burnet have been very exact in this particular but they have not arriv'd to our Author's diligence and accuracy He must therefore be content with the ejection of only 5 Bishops in King Edwardâ—s time which he promises us to prove not lawful and consequently the ejected justly restor'd and the introduc'd justly ejected in Q. Mary's time The ejection he proves not lawful Because 1st Not done by Lawful Autority 2ly Nor for a Lawful Cause § 55 1st Not done by lawful Autority Because the Bishops being tried for Matters Ecclesiastical their Judges were the King's Commissioners But neither is it true at least not prov'd that they were tried for Matters Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that the King's Commissioners amongst whom was the Metropolitan were not proper Judges in such Causes as has been prov'd by the Animadverter Nor can the Autority of such Commissioners tho' unlawful be declin'd by this Writer who presently will prove the Bishops in Q. Mary's time ejected by lawful Judges Who yet were no other then that Queen's Commissioners So that there is in this one Period such a complication of falshood as nothing can match but what follows concerning the Causes of their Deprivation The Causes he supposeth to be all the Articles of Popery as distinct to the Religion Reform'd Their not owning the King's Supremacy Non-conformity to his Injunctions Not-relinquishing the Use of former Church-Liturgies Not conforming to the New-Service and other Innovations He supposes he has by this time confirm'd his Autority with the Reader so far that he will credit his bare assertion without vouching any History But it is impossible He could have falsified so grosly had not an implicite Faith in Sanders given him over to a Spirit of delusion Tonstal
a Burn. V. 2. p. 81. Burnet who met with no footsteeps of it neither in Records nor Letters nor in any Book written at that time The succeeding Paragraphs of this Chapter pretend to give Us the defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings § 110. to § 136 together with our Author 's Rational Replies But besides that from the fair dealing of this Author already detected we have no reason to expect him ingenuous in representing the Arguments of our Divines with their just weight it may be farther offer'd by way of Precaution that those excellent Divines which he refers to wanted one advantage which we of this Age have from a more complete and Authentic History of the Reformation and among other things not knowing of the b Bur. Hist V. 1. Pref. rasure of Records made in Q. Mary's Reign pleaded to those Negative Arguments which we have good reason to reject This premis'd I proceed to consider with all possible brevity his Alphabet of Arguments α Urges that these Injunctions were not set forth but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan and β of other Bishops § 111 112 The substance of his Reply to α and β is that these Injunctions had not the Autority of the Metropolitan as such i. e. as acting with the major part of the Synod Now α β may easily rejoyn that where the matter of the Injunctions is lawful much more where it is necessary as being commanded in Scripture there the coactive Autority of the Prince is sufficiently Obligatory and that since the Office of Pastors whether in or out of Synod is directive these Injunctions proceeding from the direction of both the Metropolitans for a Bur. V. 2. p. 25. Holgate also Arch Bishop of York was a Reformer and b Ibid. other Learned Bishops were not destitute of Ecclesiastical Autority γ Saith these Injunctions were not set forth as a body of Doctrine which was the Act of the Synod in the 5th of King Edward but were provisional only for the publick exercise of Religion and Worship and Gamma is in the right of it for any thing his Replyer faith to the contrary who doth not pretend that they were A new Objection indeed is started and pretended instances given that King Edward claim'd a power for rectifying the Doctrines of his Clergy § 113 But not to trouble the Reader with examining the Instances we say that such a power might have been justly exercis'd and that a Prince requiring his Clergy to receive and teach such Doctrines as were taught by our Saviour usurps no Autority not invested in him δ Saith The publick Exercise of Religion was necessary to be provided for at present § 114 It is answer'd that the Judgment of a National Synod was necessary for such Provision For the proof of that we are refer'd to c Ch. Gov. Part. 4th a Book which no Bookseller has yet had the courage to undertake and therefore for a Reply I remit him to the Answer to it which he will find at any Shop where Church-Government Part the 4th is to be sold ζ Saith The Injunctions extend only to some evident points the abolishing of Image Worship the restoring of the Liturgy in a known tongue and Communion in both kinds and the abolishing of Romish Masses and that in the three former the King restor'd only what was establish'd in the Ancient Church § 118 It is replied that nothing is said in ξ of taking away the Mass But if the Reader be pleas'd to consult ζ he will be satisfied of our Author's modesty If ζ did not charge the Mass with Novelty it was because the Respondent had the management of the Opposition As for the other three points § 117 he confesses that the Reformation in them restor'd the practice of the Primitive Church and so kind he is that he could have pardon'd us this had we not proceeded to pronounce the contrary Doctrines unlawful A very heynous aggravation this when he himself confesses that Errâ—urs in practice do always presuppose Errors in Doctrine § 1 From which Zeta doth humbly subsume that those Church Governors who would have been facile to licence a change of their practice ought not to have been difficile in allowing us a decession from their Doctrine § 115 The Controversie betwixt out Author and ε is so trifling that it is not worth troubling the Reader with it For this reason perhaps it was that Zeta took Epsilon's place η Urges that these Injunctions were generally receiv'd and put in practice by the Bishops and θ much-what the same that they were consented to by the major part of Bishops The Answer to this consists of some Pages but what is material in it will ly in a less room It is urg'd that some were averse to the Reformation that the Compliers were guilty of dissimulation of an outward compliance whilst contrarily affected that they remain'd of the old Religion in their heart wore vizours took up a disguise and were sway'd by the fear of a new Law-giving Civil power To this η and θ will not be so rude as to rejoyn that it may perhaps be this Editor's personal Interest to prove that these Bishops complied against their Consciences and that Hypocrisie was the general principle of that party but that it is little for the honour of the Communion which he would seem to be of to urge that the whole body of it's Pastors were guilty of the highest prevarication possible with God and Man But this doth doth not at all affect our Divines who only urge that those Bishops conform'd and might in charity have hop'd that they did it Honestly but are not concern'd that this Compliance was from base and ungenerous Motives What is said here of the Liturgy shall be consider'd in λ where it ought to have been said I cannot dwell upon the History of these Paragraphs but there are in it some bold strokes worthy of our Author He blushes not to cite Parson's Conversions § 121 a book made up of lying and Treason and which might have made the Mastery in Assurance betwixt it's Author and Sanders disputable had not Posterity seen a third Person who may seem to have put an end to the quarrel In a citation from Fuller § 124 tho' he refers us to the very Page he puts upon us four Popish Bishops more then Fuller reckons Aldrich Bishop of Carlile Goodrich Bishop of Ely Chambers Bishop of Peterborough and King Bishop of Oxford Now tho' by the absolute Autority of a Church-Governor he might have impos'd these four Bishops on us Yet it seems very hard that Fuller should be commanded to satisfie us of this point who not only mentions no such Bishops but in his Marginal notes tell 's us that he thinks Oxford and Ely were at that time void We are told that Cranmer in the beginning of King Edward's days call'd a Synod § 127 wherein he endeavour'd to
our Universities against them in a point of Controversy agitated between us for an authentic proof how would He make himself merry with Us Yet we might do the one as well as he doth the other b Protest Ordin def against S.N. Tom. 4. Disc 7. p. 1006. Pamphl Bishop Bonner wrote a book wherein he contended that the new devis'd Ordination of Ministers was insufficient and void because no Autority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the body and blood of our Saviour Christ but both the Ordainer and Ordained despis'd and impugn'd not only the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass but also the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar A. Bp. Br. He saith We are not order'd to offer true Substantial Sacrifice Not expresly indeed No more were they themselves for 800 Years after Christ and God knows how much longer No more are the Greek Church or any other Christian Church except the Roman at this day Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly Ordain'd and admit them to exercise all the Offices of Priestly Function in Rome it self We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving a Commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross a Representative Sacrifice or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the Eyes of his Heavenly Father an Imperative Sacrifice or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of Real prayer and lastly an Applicative Sacrifice or an application of his merits unto our Souls Let him that dare go one step farther then We do and say that it is a Suppletory Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever a Bp. Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 3. c. 9. p. 255. Pamp. Those who are truely ordain'd yet if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church their true Orders as to the Exercise of them are unlawful and so unless a Church be first clear'd from Heresy and Schism these Orders are not rightly employed in it A. Bp. Br. First I deny that the Protestant Bishops did revolt from the Catholic Church Nay they are more Catholic than the Roman-Catholics themselves Secondly I deny that the Protestant Bishops are Heretics Thirdly I deny that they are guilty of Schism Fourthly I deny that the Autority of our Protestant Bishops was ever restrain'd by the Catholic Church Fifthly No sentence whatsoever of whomsoever or of what crime soever can obliterate the Episcopal Character which is indeleble nor disable a Bishop from Ordaining so far as to make the Act invalid b Ibid. Disc 7. p. 990. Pam. Tho' I do not here state the Question Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops yet their Ordination and Introduction if valid seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful A. Bp. Br. For the Canons we maintain that our form of Episcopal Ordination hath the same Essentials with the Roman but in other things of inferior allay it differeth from it The Papal Canons were never admitted for binding Laws in England farther then they were receiv'd by our selves and incorporated into our Laws but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholic Church And for our Statutes the Parliament hath answer'd that Objection sufficiently shewing clearly that the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops was legal and for the validity of it we crave no man's favour a Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc 5. cap. 8. p. 471. Pamph. They came many of them into the places of others unjustly expell'd A. Bp. Br. This is saying but we expect proving b Ibid. Pamph. Neither the major part nor any save one of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination Dr. Bur. If Ordinations or Consecrations upon the King's Mandate be invalid which the Paper drives at then all the Ordinations of the Christian-Church are also annul'd since for many Ages they were all made upon the Mandates of Emperors and Kings By which You may see the great weakness of this Argument c Dr. Burnet's Vindic. of our Ordinations p. 09. Pamph. No Metropolitan can be made without the consent of the Patriarch but Arch-Bishop Parker was ordain'd without and against the consent of the Patriarch A. Bp. Br. The British Islands neither were nor ought to be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as I have sufficiently demonstrated a Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 2. cap. 9. p. 128. Pamph. Neither did be receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior but merely that which the Queen a Lay-Person by her Delegates in this Employment did undertake to conferr upon him Dr. Bur. All Consecrations in this land are made by Bishops by the power that is inherent in them only the King gives orders for the Execution of that their power Therefore all that the Queen did in the case of Matthew Parker and the Kings do since was to command so many Bishops to exercise a power they had from Christ in such or such Instances b Vindic. of Ord. p. 89. Pamph. Which Delegates of hers were none of them at that time possest of any Diocess Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chichester and Hereford and Coverdale never after admitted or elected to any and Hoskins a Suffragan A. Bp. Br. The Office and Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthron'd may ordain as well as a Bishop inthron'd The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishopricks was always reputed as good in the Catholic Church if the Suffragan had Episcopal Ordination as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world c Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 452. Pamph. Nor had they had Dioceses could have had any larger Jurisdiction save within these at least being single Bishops could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction which yet they confer'd on Parker not on their own sure but on the Queen's Score Dr. Bur. Does he believe himself who says that none can Install a Bishop in a Jurisdiction above himself Pray then who invests the Popes with their Jurisdiction Do not the Cardinals do it and are not they as much the Pope's Suffragans as Hodgskins was Canterburie's so that if inferiors cannot invest one in a Superior Jurisdiction then the Popes can have none legally since they have their's from the Cardinals that are inferior in Jurisdiction There are two things to be consider'd in the Consecration of a Primate the one is giving him the Order of a Bishop the other is inverting him with the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan For the former all Bishop are equal in Order none has more or less then another so that the Consecrators of Matthew Parker being Bishops by their