Precontract being with the Earl of Northumberland he had by a solemn Oath and by his receiving the Sacrament upon it in the Presence of the Duke of Norfolk and some others of the Privy Council denied any such Precontract Of which Dr. Burnet assures us he saw the Original Attestation under that Earl's own hand This had so far invalidated the Queens Confesssion that it seems the Parliament would not descend into the specifying of her Confession Dr. Burnet hath also given several Evidences of her being at that time so much disordered by Vapours that this doth in a great measure weaken the Credit of her Testimony even against her self Upon this whole matter then there are three important Considerations which arises out of the Fact and any one of these seems strong enough to overthrow all the Inferences that can be drawn from that part of our Story 1. She was a Person condemned now all the Examinations of Persons condemned are by the Laws of all Nations only Presumptions but not Proofs the Terrors of Death and the Hardiships of a Prison are such just abatements that Confessions so made can never have that Credit given them as to found any Sentence upon them but in that Queens Case there are two things which give this General Consideration yet more force as to her particular The one is That it being in the King's Power to order her either to be Burnt or Beheaded the Terror of the former might carry her to say any thing that might procure her the softer Death But the other was yet stronger it was a natural-enough Temptation to her to lead her to confess a Pre-contract since by that Confession she might hope so far to extinguish the Crime for which she was condemned as to obtain her Life by that means She was condemned for Adultery now the Confession of a Pre-contract might be drawn from her as a thing that dissolved the Marriage and by consequence acquitted her of the Adultery for which she was condemned since if she was never the Kings true Wife she could not be guilty towards him So that this matter was perhaps represented to her as that which must certainly save her Life And thus this Confession being grounded on the fears of Death and carrying in it the hopes of Life can be of no force in Law. 2. The bare Confession of a Pre-contract without any other Adminiele or Evidence to confirm it cannot be supposed a just ground to dissolve a Marriage otherwise Married Persons when they grow weary of one another may dissolve their Marriage by taking a false Oath It 's true in other cases the Parties own Confession is strong enough in Law against themselves but in this case both the married Persons being equally concerned in the Tie that follows upon it the Confession of the one cannot dissolve the Right that accrued to the other upon the Marriage and since two Witnesses are necessary in all such Cases the Confession of one of the Parties is at most but the single Evidence of one Witness and therefore Ann Bullens Confession could not make the Marriage void This is further confirmed by the Denial of the Person with whom the Pre-contract was preteneded to be made if her Confession gave such a Credit to the matter as to annul her subsequent Marriage with the King it ought likewise to have annulled the Earl of Northumberland's Marriage therefore it could not be received in Law. The other circumstances of it do also concur to weaken its credit it was so secretly carried that one of the Judges of that time tells us only that it was reported that she had confessed a Pre-contract so that it was not managed with the necessary Forms of Justice and it being probable that some General Promise of Marriage had passed between her and the Earl of Northumberland it is not likely that she understood the difference between a Promise and a Contract so she might especially in such a Hurry and under so much disorder mistake the one for the other 3. But in the last place it is to be considered that here was an Innocent Child in the case whose Legitimacy and Right could not be cut off by her Mothers extorted Confession Infants are more particularly under the protection of the Law and therefore Acts passed against them in that state of Feebleness have such flaws in them that they have always a right to reverse them so a single Witness in such Circumstances as her Mothers were could not be sufficient to disgrace and disinherit her and the Confirmation of the Act of Parliament that followed afterwards might have been a forcible bar in Law to her but could be no just one for as a Bastard is still a Bastard even tho he were Legitimated by Act of Parliament so a lawful Child is still what 't is notwithstanding a Sentence of Bastardy confirmed in Parliament and this is so true and was so evidently the Practice of that time that even King Henry in his suit of Divorce with Queen Catherine was willing to have his Daughter Mary declared Legitimate because Children begat in a Marriage are begotten bona fide and so they ought not to suffer because of the secret fault of their Parents And if this was yielded in a Marriage where both Parents were according to the Kings Pretensions guilty of Incest it was much more just in this Case of Ann Bullen even supposing her Precontract true for her secret fault ought not to blemish nor ruin her innocent Child Another Instance that fell out at this time in the Royal Family is very considerable and because it is little known I fancy the Reader will not be displeased to have it particularly opened to him Henry the 8th's Sister that was Queen of Scotland did after her Husband King Iames the 4th's Death marry the Earl of Angus and by that Marriage she had a Daughter Lady Margaret Douglas Some time after her Marriage she fell to be in ill terms with her Husband and discovered a Pre-contract he had given to another and upon this she sued him in the Spiritual Court and it being proved the Marriage was annulled but her Daughter was still held to be Legitimated and was entertained by King Henry as his Niece and given by him in Marriage to the Earl of Lenox of whom descended the Lord Darnly that was King Iames the 1st of England's Father and since he was considered to be the Second Person in the Succession to the Crown of England after the Queen of Scots this shews that by the Practice of that Time a Pre-contract even legally proved yet did not illegitimate the Issue that were begotten bona Fide by one of the Parents And thus I hope enough is said to overthrow the Objection that is made to the first Constitution of our Church under Q Eliz it was strangely put and decently and weightily writ and therefore I have answered it with the like Decency of Stile so that if I treat the
the Civil and Temporal Heads of our Church XXIV He tells us that the Monks could not give away that which they had only for term of Life I know not how this comes to be delivered by our Author at a time when the surrender of so many Charters to the King hath been judged Legal though it was made by men who had no Title to these and who were so far from having a Right to them for Term of Life that they had only the Administration of them in an Annual Magistracy so that our Author had best consider how he advances such Positions lest he doth as much hurt one way as he thinks to do service another In a word our Author hath pleaded the Cause of the Monasteries and hath arraigned the Suppression of them severely tho as he said concerning the burning of Hereticks he would not be thought to plead for it in this place XXV He accuses King Henry for giving Dispensations in matters of Marriage against Ecclesiastical Canons and because he declared all Marriages to be lawful that were not against Gods Law Here if in any thing the perverseness of the Church of Rome appears or rather their design to oblige the World to have oft recourse to them to pay them well and to depend much on them they have prohibited Marriage in many degrees that were not forbid by the Law of God and to ballance this they have suffered Marriages to be contracted in the Degrees forbid by God for the Pope's Power of Dispensing is promoted both ways they have added a new Contrivance of Spiritual Kindred and as the Prohibitions that they have set up were unknown to the Ancient Church so the Degrees that they have declared dispensable were believed by the Ancient Church to be moral and indispensable And yet after all this corruption of Ecclesiastical Discipline they are in great wrath at the Reformers because they thought it was fit to return to the Degrees forbid by the Law of Moses and to cut off these superadded Prohibitions which were inventions to bring grist to that Mill where all things were to be had so men will come up to the Price There follow here a great many Instances in which King Henry exercised his Supremacy which our Author aggravates all he can But the Considerations that were proposed in the first Part seem fully to satisfie all the difficulties that can be thought to arise out of them XXVI He tells us that such of the Privy Council as complied not with the Changes made in King Edward's Days were turned out after some time and names Bishop Tonstal Wriothesly the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel and he adds That the King had but one Parliament continued by Prorogation from Session to Session till at last it ended in the Death of the King. Here are Matters of no great Consequence I confess but these shew how careless our Author was in examining the Story of our Reformation and how easy he was to take up any Reports that might blast it It will not appear a very extraordinary thing to see Privy Counsellors turned out that do not concur with the Designs that prevail Some such things have possibly fallen out in our own Time and Men have no great cause to complain of a severe Administration when this is all the Rigour that is shewed to those who oppose themselves to the Tide But our Author was misinformed in all these Particulars Tonstal went along with all that was done and was contented to protest in Parliament against some Laws but as soon as they were made he gave a ready Obedience to them and continued to be still in the Council during the Duke of Somerset's Ministry Wriothesly was not turned out till after some time but immediately upon King Henry's Death he had past an illegal Patent upon which to prevent a severer Sentence he resign'd his Place but he continued still to be of the Privy Council And the Earl of Arundel continued to be of the Privy Council for many Years and long after fell to be in ill terms with the Duke of Northumberland and upon that an Enquiry was made into his Administration and he was fined 12000 Pounds But it is no wonder to find our Author mistaken in matters of this Nature when in so publick a thing as that King Edward had but one Parliament in his whole Reign he hath not been at the pains to turn over the Book of Statutes for there he would have found that King Edward's first Parliament was dissolved the 15th of April 1552 and a Second Parliament was called and opened the First of March following and was dissolved the last Day of that same Month. So that there were two Parliaments in this Reign and the Second was dissolved by an Act of the King 's and not by his Death I do confess these are not great Matters yet this may be drawn out of them that our Author who pretends to have examined the Transactions of that Time with so much exactness took things upon trust without giving himself the trouble to enquire into them so critically as was necessary for one that was resolved to pass a Judgment upon them XXVII He expostulates upon the Inhibition of preaching put upon the Bishops except in their own Cathedrals which agrees ill with the Censure that Fox passes upon them as Dumb Prelates And after this there was a general Inhibition on the whole Clergy hindring them to preach till a Uniform Order of Doctrine should be set out in which some Bishops and other Learned Men were then employed by the King's Order As for this Inhibition upon Bishops to preach except in their Cathedrals it is a Fiction of our Author's for which he can give no Voucher they were not so much as restrained from giving Licences to preach much less to preach themselves over their Diocess The second and general Restraint as it was but for a very short while so the Thing is very doubtful and stands only on Fuller's Credit who was too careless a Writer to be appealed to in any Matter of Consequence XXVIII Our Author cites here the Discourse of Communion in one kind which by all appearance is that lately writ by the Bishop of Meaux This shews that the Author and the Publisher is the same Person though others pretend that the Author is dead many Years ago But it seems the Publisher thought fit at least to add some new touches and since he did that he might have thought it worth the while to have examined at least the Records published by Dr. Burnet and his History it self might have been considered as well as Mr. Fullers and Dr. Heylins But since it seems our Author thought the Discourse of the Communion in one kind fit to be recommended by him I will take the liberty to recommend the Answer to it in French by Monsieur Larroque and that lately writ in English in which the disingenuity of the Discourse
still the Priviledges of such a See when all those Reasons which at first procured to it those Priviledges come to cease As for the Third which are more perpetual we pay them all respect and have never changed them but the Dispensations of the Church of Rome hath so destroyed them all that it is a peculiar degree of Confidence for any that are in Communion with that Church to assert such an immutability in the Ancient Canons that a National Synod may not be suffered to alter any of them and yet that one single Bishop whom all Antiquity considered but as a Collegue and Fellow-Bishop to all the rest of the Order should be alloweed an Authority to break and dissolve them all This may serve to shew how weak all those Foundations are upon which our Author builds I come in the next place to examine his Defective and False Account of the Matters of Fact which will engage me into a tedious opening of many Particulars that will be little for our Author's Honour but no Discoveries will affect a Man that could stifle his Conscience for 25 Years and that now hath the Impudence to own it FINIS REFLECTIONS ON THE Oxford Theses Relating to the ENGLISH REFORMATION PART II. Amsterdam Printed for J. S. 1688. REFLECTIONS ON THE Oxford Theses Relating to the ENGLISH REFORMATION IN the former part of these Reflections the general grounds on which our Reformation was attacked were examined the matters of Fact come now to be considered but before I enter upon these alledged by our Author I thought it fitting to begin with an Enquiry into a very important matter relating to that time that hath been lately objected to our Church by one of the Church of Rome which as it is New so it is likewise of great Consequence A Sheet has appeared that was well and decently writ and with a very specious appearance of Reason to prove that Q Elizabeth was a Bastard not upon the common pretence of the Nullity of K. Henry the Eighth's Marriage with her Mother because his former Marriage with Q. Katherine was still in force but upon a Precontract in which Ann Bullen was engaged before her Marriage to K. Henry which being confessed by her self the Marriage was null of it self and was judged to be so by Arch-Bishop Cranmer whose Sentence was confirmed by the Subsequent Parliament So that here is a Nullity and by consequence a Bastardy It is true this Assertion is new so tho it may raise the Credit of him that hath discovered it since it must be confessed that it looks very like good reasoning yet on the other hand it is some prejudice against it that it doth not appear it was ever objected to us before now and no mention being made of it while the whole matter was fresh in Mens memories and while that Queen reigned whose Title this seems to weaken much more than all the other things that were alledged to shake it is a great Presumption that the Men of that time knew there was no force in it So that tho the Novelty of it may please yet it is really a strong prejudice against it But after all it must be confessed the thing is specious and it is of great consequence not only with Relation to the Credit of our Church and of its first Reformation but with Relation to our present Establishment For tho the Writer of that Sheet makes no other use of it but to blemish our Church as guilty of Sedition and Disloyalty for owning a Bastard against the Queen of Scots who was the next lawful Heir yet it will bear another Consequence that is more important in our present Circumstances For as a Precontract infers a Nullity of the Marriage and disables all the issue of it so an ill Title in a Queen infers a Nullity upon all her Laws all her Acts of Government as flowing from an Usurper and therefore this strikes not only at the Honour of our Church in the last Age but at its Settlement in the present and I believe this last is chiefly aimed at For as to the former it may serve in a great measure to justifie our Church that Q. Elizabeth was put in Possession of the Crown by the Nation while it was yet Popish and by the Body of the Clergy that were of that Religion so that all that those of our Church did was to maintain her in that Possession in which we found her and in which our Enemies had put Her. And it must be acknowledged that an anxious weighing of Titles is not so necessary after one is in a legal and peaceable Possession acknowledged by all Parties within the Kingdom as well as by all Princes without it I do not pretend to say That a Possession will justify a bad Title tho there is older Law relating to the Possession of the Crown of England passed by King Henry the VII but an undisputed Possession does certainly very much excuse those who acknowledge and submit to one that is bonoe fidei Possessor Which was plainly Q. Elizabeth's Case But because it may be with great colour of Reason alledged that Right is Right still and that Possession or Prescription are only pretences of Law which may have perhaps weight before a Judg yet these are not sufficient to extinguish a just Title when matters are examined in themselves and abstracted from those Pleadings that may perhaps be legal yet as some will alledg are scarce rational So I will examine this matter as fairly as I must confess it is stated by that Gentleman and will first propose the matter of Fact as Dr. Burnet hath put it who is the only Author that is cited and therefore he must be supposed to have some Credit here Queen Ann Bullen was attainted of Treason upon some pretended Proofs of Adultery and so Judgment was given That she should be either Burnt which is the Death that the Law prescribes for the Traitors of that Sex or Beheaded Two days after the Sentence she is prevail'd on to confess a Precontract before Arch-Bishop Cranmer and so her Marriage with the King is declared void and null and in consequence of that the Issue is illegitimated yet this was so secretly carried that one of the Iudges of that time writes of it as a thing that was only reported and in the subsequent Act of Parliament no mention is made of a Precontract tho no doubt she had confessed it with the circumstances of Time and Person Yet in the Act of Parliament it is only said that she had confessed some just and lawful Impediments by which it was evident that her Marriage with the King was not valid It cannot be now known how this matter was expressed in the Sentence given by Cranmer all these Records being burnt But it is most probable that the matter was more distinctly specified Now the only Reason we can give of those general Words in the Act of Parliament is that this pretended
is made of the Corruption of the Foreign Universities 1. It is true all the World believed that the first Marriage was consummated as appears by what Cajetan saies upon it But 2. since our Author cites Lord Herbert's History of King Henry 8th he must needs have seen in him as clear Proofs of a Consummation as a thing of that nature is capable of 3. Prince Arthur's early Death was generally imputed to his too early Marriage and the care that was had of the Princess after his Death the delay of giving the Title of Prince of Wales to the younger Brother and the mention made of the Consummation of that Marriage dubiously indeed in the Bull for the second Marriage but more positively in the suspected Brief are all as strong Presumptions as could be brought for proving a thing of that nature 4. Tonstal concurred with the King in the Divorce and in all that followed upon it so that our Author had need find better Proofs of this than Sander's Word otherwise he 'l hardly gain Credit 5. The Learned Men he mentions come within a very small compass For as Cajetan was the first Author of that Opinion so he had very few followers in that Age tho the consequences of this Dispute hath drawn the current of the Authors of the Roman Communion since that time to follow his Opinion 6. An Act of Parliament made by Gardner and others in the beginning of Queen Maries Reign who were the chief managers of the Suit against her Mother and who by this Act intended to make their Peace and their Court with her is indeed a very venerable Authority and may very fitly come into the same Paragraph with Sanders V. He pretends that Cranmer and Cromwell were the Authors of the Advice of the King 's obliging the Clergy in their Submission to own him for the Supreme Head of the Church It is true he cites Antiqui Britt for this and for another thing that whereas the Clergy desired to have qualified that Title with these Words In so far as it is lawful by the Law of Christ the King refused this and the Clergy granted it without that Restriction Here an Author is pretended but if the Writer of this Treatise had examined these matters exactly he would have found by a Letter of King Henry's to the Convocation of York that the King had accepted of this Limitation and indeed the nature of things puts it in whether it had been set down in so many express Words or not and as for what is said here of Cranmer it is without ground for he was then beyond Sea imployed in disputing concerning the Divorce VI. He says Warham Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was a favourer of Queen Katherines Cause This agrees ill with his owning that he saw the Lord Herbert's History in which he might have found Warham's Deposition upon Oath in which he acknowledges that he thought the Marriage was neither honourable nor well-pleasing to God that therefore he had opposed it much And Warham did set forward the Divorce with so much zeal that he procured a Writing to be signed by all the Bishops of his Province declaring that they thought that the Kings Marriage was Vnlawful and in this he was so earnest that when Fisher refused to Sign it he pressed him vehemently unto it but the other said still that it was against his Conscience so he made another Person subscribe in Fisher's name and set to his Seal to the Paper and pretended that he had Fisher's leave to do it which he affirmed before the Legates when the matter came to be examined So false is it that Warham favoured the Marriage VII He pretends that the next step of the Reformation was the Submission of the Clergy by which they bound themselves not to Assemble without the Kings Writ nor to make or execute any Canons unless the King should by his Royal Grant Command them to make or to execute them But the Proof he cites for this discovers his Prevarication evidently It seems he thought a careless Reader seeing an Assertion and a Citation following after it would without reading the long Citation take it for granted that it agreed with the Assertion and without being at the pains to read it would run on to new matter The Clergy did not bind themselves never to meet without the Kings Writ They only said That the Convocation had ever been and ought always to be assembled by the Kings Writ which only shews what is the regular Method of their Assembling themselves But tho this obliges them to meet always when they are required to do it by the Kings Writ yet it doth not bind them up from meeting in ease the necessities of the Church do require it and that the King refuses his Writ for then they are reduced to these prudential Considerations in the managing of their matters in a case of Persecution Nor did they bind themselves up from executing the old Canons but only from the enacting of new ones which is very different from the view that our Author gives of it as was made out in the first Part of these Reflections VIII He fastens a very strange Inference on some Words of an Act of Parliament as if they had amounted to this That no Laws of the Land nor the Prerogative assumed by the King had any thing of Heresy in them If by this is only meant that the Laws then in being were not Heretical there is nothing extraordinary in such a Pretention For a Body in which the Legislative power resides will very naturally after its own Orthodoxy and the bare asserting it will hardly be thought a Criminal Attempt But if our Author meant as probably he did that by this a Declaration was made for all time coming that the Laws of the Land should be for ever the Standard of Heresy or sound Doctrine then this Conclusion will hardly be found in the Authority that he gives us for it which is an Act declaring That the speaking against those Laws made by the Authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which were repugnant to the Laws of the Realm or the King's Prerogative should not be judged Heresy This is an Inference worthy of the Sincerity of its Author In the Body of the Canon-Law there are many Laws made that destroy all Civil-Government whatsoever and that subject Princes wholly to the Pope There are also many Laws made relating to Civil matters in Ordine ad Spiritualia but all to be sure for advancing the Interests of that Court from which they came Now the Civil Courts in England were already in Possession of giving a check to the Spiritual Courts and of granting Prohibitions upon their Judgments even in Cases of Heresy when the Spiritual Courts had judged men Hereticks for Articles that were not Heresy as Appeals lie for the like cases in France so that the Parliament made only a Regulation in this
been extremely arrogant and obstinate and zealous beyond knowledg and tho they had suffered for a good Cause yet suffering for it on good or reasonable grounds as neither themselves being any way learned nor pretending the Authority of any Church nor relying on any present Teachers but on the certainty of their own private Judgment interpreting Scripture as you may see And here some Instances are given but if this Period will close it self it may for our Author who seldom takes care of such small matters leaves it in this unfinished condition I will not examine the truth of this Maxim but will only take notice that since all Protestants agree in this that the Ground of our Faith is that which appears to us to be the Sense of the Scripture our Author hath by this Limitation of his former gentleness towards us delivered us all over to the Secular Arm and so God have Mercy on our Souls for it is plain he will have none upon our Bodies XI He quarrels with the Privy-Council for imprisoning of Bonner because he said he would observe the Injunctions that were sent him if they were not contrary and repugnant to Gods Law and to 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 But since he had a mind to blacken that time he might have as well said that they found fault with him because he promised to obey the Injunctions if they were not contrary to Gods Law and that thereby it appeared that they preferred their Injunctions to the Laws of God as well as to the Laws of the Church and by our Author 's taking no notice of the first Branch of Bonner's Exception it may be inferred That all his Concern is about the Laws of the Church and so they be secured he troubles himself little what becomes of the Law of God But if he had weighed this matter as he ought to do he would have found that this Exception is very ill grounded When a Form of a Subscription is demanded there is no Government in the World that will accept of one that indeed signifies nothing at all for it is visible that a Subscription made with those Reserves signifies nothing therefore if Bonner had acted as became his Character he should have directly refused the Subscription of such Injunctions as he found to be contrary to the Laws of God or to such Laws of the Church as he thought bound his Conscience But the Protestation he made gave a very just ground to the Government to proceed against him according to Law. XII Our Author intending to aggravate the Proceedings against Gardiner shews his great Judgment in setting down the Article relating to the Kings Supremacy at full length whereas he had only named the others for he could have invented nothing that must needs render all his Exceptions to the King's Supremacy more visibly unjust than this doth which is in these Words 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 all Errors and Heresies and other Enormities and Abuses so that the same Alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scriptures or Law of God. This was no other than what Gardiner had over and over again both by his Oaths and his Writings advanced and the restriction set on it was so just that one would think there lay no possible Exception to it Here there is no claim to the declaring what were Errors and Heresies but only to the repressing them and this is done by the Secular Arm even where men are burnt for Heresie Besides the Power that according to our Author belongs to the Pastors of the Church is either founded on the Scriptures or it is not if it is not founded on the Scriptures there is no great regard to be had to it but if it is founded on it then it it clearly excepted by the words of this Article so it is hard to see of what use this is to our Author unless it be to shew him his Injustice XIII He tells us That all that which had been done under King Henry and King Edward was Annulled by an equal Authority under Queen Mary But tho I acknowledg he was both the Soveraign and the Parliament yet there was neither Justice nor Moderation in the Charge now made equal to what had been done before A great deal might be said concerning the Election of the Members of Parliament and the Practices upon them and of the turning out a Multitude of the Clergy before the Laws were changed The Disorders and Irregularities in the Disputes had nothing of that fair Dealing in them that had appeared in King Edward's time and whereas all the Severity of King Edward's days was the Imprisoning of three or four Bishops and the turning out some of the other Clergy he knows well how matters went under Queen Mary So that we cannot be denied this Glory that a Spirit of Justice and Moderation appear'd at every time that the Reformation prevail'd Whereas things went much otherwise in this sad Revolution in which our Author Glories so much So that if the good or ill Behaviours of the several Parties as they had their turns in the Administration of Affairs furnishes a just Prejudice even in favour of the Cause it self we have this on our side as fully as we can wish for XIV He tells us That the Bishoprick of Durham was first kept void in King Edward's days and last of all it was by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue If our Author had examined the Records of Parliament he would have found that the Act that related to the Bishoprick of Durham did not at all propose the Increase of the Kings Revenue but the dividing of one Bishoprick into two and the raising and endowing of a new Cathedral Church all which must have risen to about Four thousand Marks of old Rents which considering how long Lands were let near the Borders did certainly very near exhaust the whole Revenue of that See. This is indeed of no great Importance to the main Cause For if sacrilegious Men went into the Reformation hoping to enrich themselves by it this is nothing but what falls out in all great Revolutions And it is plain our Author took up general Reports very easily that so he might make a Clamour with them against our Church But if some that gave an outward compliance to the Doctrine of our Church were really a Reproach to it he of all Men for a certain Reason ought not to insist on it Since we are no more accountable for the Duke of Northumberland's Actions than we are for his own XV. He tells us That the Bishops turned out
of ours XIX Our Author excepts to King Henry the Eighth's abrogating those Laws That were established by the Authority of the Bishops of Rome as if this included all those Laws that were passed by the Councils in which Popes presided since the Canon-Law is composed of Synodal as well as of Pontifical Laws In this we will freely own to him that since the time that the Popes have so far enslaved the Bishops as to make them swear Obedience to them we look upon all the Laws that have been made in Synods composed of men so pre-engaged as Papal Laws but this doth not at all touch those Laws that passed before that Authority was claimed And indeed there never was a grosser Abuse put on the World than the whole Canon Law. For as for the first and soundest part of it which is Gratian's Decree it was only a Common-place Book drawn up by a Man that was indeed considering the Age in which he lived of great Learning and good Judgment But he was at that time so ill furnished with all necessary helps to make him judg a right of his Matter that it is an impudent thing in the Ages of more Knowledg to pretend to keep up the Credit of a Book that was compiled in so dark and so corrupt a Time. The rest is yet worst made up of Papal Constitutions or the Decrees of those ignorant and packt Assemblies that had met for the three Ages preceding the Reformation If King Henry had abrogated the Ancient Canons our Author might have had some Colour for his Complaints But the total abrogating of that course Compilation of the Canon-Laws which never was founded on any good Authority was so just a thing that there are very few Learned Men in the Roman Communion at present that will not say it were well for the Church if it were quite laid aside since now all men but such as our Author are ashamed of it XX. Our Author writes as if he intended to do Honour to the Memory of King Henry For he cites these Words out of his Preface to his Injunctions Which Agreement of the Clergy for as much as we think to have proceeded of a good right and true Iudgment and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God He thereupon ordered it to be published An ordinary man would be upon this induced to approve mightily of the King's method First to Authorize the Clergy to examine those Matters and after that to review their Determinations himself before he gave his Civil Sanction to them Would our Author have a Prince rely blindly on a National Clergy which is subject to Error as is acknowledged by all the World What Judgment then can he follow but his own The Civil Power must be applied in matters of Religion as is acknowledged on all hands upon the Judgment of the Prince For he can follow no other even in the Principles of the Church of Rome except when he is determined by an Infallible Court which is only in a General Council XXI Among the other Exorbitances of the King's Supremacy one reckoned up by our Author is his taking away the Pope's Authority as Patriarch in confirming the Metropolitan and his requiring his Clergy under the pains of Premunire to consecrate into Bishopricks any that he shall nominate It is great Ignorance or somewhat worse in our Author if he will pretend that the Authority of the Patriarchs over Metropolitans was of Primitive Antiquity for by the Council of Nice every Province was an intire Body within it self if the Clergy is under some servitude as to the promoting those nominated by the King the Pope is under the same to the King of France by the Concordate and our subjection in this Point does not bind our Consciences but lies only on our Persons and Benefices and therefore when a case of Persecution comes we must resolve to venture on a Premunire and worse things too if we are pressed hard XXII He adds to this another gross mistake in History intimating that the Suppression of Monasteries was done by virtue of this Supremacy upon which he runs out into a long deduction of many Particulars relating to that Affair but this is all so false that the Supremacy was not so much as once pretended in it it went all upon Acts of Parliament and the surrenders of the Monks If the King acted violently and unjustly in this matter it doth not at all concern the Reformation and much less his Supremacy and as for all the Topicks of Sacriledg and Profanation and the alienation of Things and the violation of Persons Sacred these are general and dreadful words which lose their Horror when it is considered That the vast endowments of Monasteries were the effects of the Superstition of those Ages in which the belief of the Redemption out of Purgatory by the saying of so many Masses together with many false Miracles had prevailed so far on the Ignorance and Credulity of the World as to draw the best part of the Wealth of Europe into those Houses when I say not only the scandalous Lives of many Monks which were indeed but Personal Things but their false Miracles and Relicks and above all the falshood of redeeming men out of Purgatory by their means were discovered no doubt it was lawful to dissolve all those Endowments and to turn their Wealth to better uses and if the King did not enough that way it was so much the worse for him but that doth not at all blemish the Reformation So that all the long digression he makes upon this Head is impertinent to the business in hand which is the Supremacy XXIII He says That the Pope pretends no such Power as to alienate the Church-Revenues for to spend them himself or to dispose of them in what manner or to what Persons he pleases but only for some just Cause that is in a prudential Arbitration for an equal or greater benefit accruing to the Church or Christianity I do not know if the D's of Parma or a great many other Princes that have been raised out of the Patrimony of the Church would judg this to be good Doctrine and if the Church is always a minor so that the Bargains made in her name may be ever recalled it would be hard to find what Benefit hath arisen to the Church or Christianity out of the Robberies that Popes have made to raise their Families and it is a strange piece of Impudence in these men who are always reproaching us with what some of our Princes did in the time of the Reformation when all that put together doth not amount to the Injustices that have been committed in one single Pontificate of those whom they would have us look on as God's Trustees and as Christ's Vicars if they are not concerned in those who are the Spiritual Heads of their Church much less are we bound to justifie all the Actions of those who are only
mentioned by our Author is laid open beyond all possibility of replying XXIX He tells us that the Veneration of Images was defined in a General Council the Second Nicene which Council also justifies it by Antiquity That Council hath been lately sufficiently exposed by a Learned and Judicious Pen. It was neither a General Council nor did it justify what it defined by Antiquity The falshood of some of their Allegations and the Impertinences of the rest and the Inferences drawn from those pretended Authorities are all such extravagant Things that they give a just prejudice against every thing that was defined by Men that were equally void of sincerity and of common sense XXX There follows from this to the end of the Chapter a long and laborious Vindication of the Clergy in King Edward's Time in which our Author endeavours by many Instances of which some were mentioned in the First Part to make it appear that the Clergy at that time gave only an outward compliance that they acted against their Consciences that the Severity of that Time tho it went no further than to the ejecting them out of their Benefices who refused to comply and to the imprisoning of a very few yet wrought so much upon their weakness and their love of Mony that against their Perswasions they complied both in Subscribing Swearing and Officiating in the Divine Service This shews our Author's sound and good Judgment that leads him to fancy that he hath by this Plea done any thing but blackned them in the most infamous manner that can be imagined It had been much less scandalous upon them to have owned that many of them were weak and easy Men ignorant and tractable and so were apt to be seduced but that in Q. Mary's Time they return'd again to their old Persuasions But this would not have served our Author's turn who wanted somewhat to excuse his own treacherous Compliance against his Conscience for so many Years even after he had all that Conviction which he owns in his Book But if he hopes to excuse his Crimes by shewing that his own Church hath produced in former Times Men as black and as criminal as himself we do not envy him this Apology He might perhaps have another design in it but of the same size of Sincerity and good Judgment with the other He no doubt fancied as many more perhaps did that the Church of England had many more such false Brethren as Himself in her Bosom who wanted only good Colours and a fair Occasion to declare themselves and so as he had been preparing many Books with which he hoped to overthrow us when ever the time of publishing them should come he fancied this Representation that he gives of the Complyance of the Popish Party might offer to others like himself some excuse for their dissembling so long with God and Man only that they might enjoy the Profits of a Benefice since it cannot be so much as pretended that there was any other Temptation in the case But God be thanked he hath had few Companions in his Apostacy or Treachery let him choose which he will. XXXI Our Author cites a Passage out of a Letter of Q. Mary's written in her Brother's time to the Privy-Council in which there is a Period that overthrows a great many of his Assertions She says that she was well assured that the King her Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal Now if the former part of the Citation he produces makes a little against the Changes in King Edward's time the latter part is as strong in the Justification of that which was done under K. Henry I cannot leave this without taking notice of our Author's way of citing which gives the justest cause of Suspicion that can be The words he cites are I have offended no Law 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 Now did ever Man before our Author put an c. in such a place I have not Fox by me from whom this is cited but I am sure this way of cutting a Sentence doth not look fair XXXII I pass over many Particulars which are Repetitions of things that have been already considered relating to the Instances in which the King's Supremacy was exercised Only where he complains of the restoring the Cup to the Laity as contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance I must acknowledg his Sincerity in not pretending to carry the Violation of our Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament higher than the 15th Century We are not ashamed to own that our Reformers thought it better to follow the first 14 Centuries especially since our Lord's Institution was at the Head of them then so late and so treacherous an Assembly that had overthrown all the Confidence that can be among Men as well as it had sacrilegiously robbed the People of a Right that was derived to them by our Saviour's express Words XXXIII He quarrels the Form of Ordination set out in Edward the Sixth's Time because in contradiction to all Antiquity that part was cast out by which a Bishop gives to Priests a Power to offer up Sacrifices and to say Masses for the Dead and the Living It seems our Author knows Antiquity as well as he doth the History of our Reformation otherwise he had never pretended that a Form that is no elder than the 8th Century was the Practice of all Antiquity This is so clear to all who have examined this matter that it is needless to urge it farther The Silence of all ancient Authors the Form mentioned by the 4th Council of Carthage by the Apostolical Constitutions and by Denis the Areopagite and the ancient Rituals printed by Morinus are such clear Proofs in this matter that I may well save my self a farther Labour XXXIV He gives another Exception against our Book of Ordinations that instead of the Oath of Submission to the Patriarch there was another Oath prescribed to the Temporal Prince Our Author must needs know that the Oath which was formerly sworn to the Pope was a plain Oath of Homage such as Subjects swear to their Princes by which all Bishops were bound to the Popes and to the Regalities of St. Peter as to their Leige Lord in the same form of Words in which Vassals swore Homage to their Superiour Lords and it was no wonder to see our Legislators change that into an Oath of Supremacy to our Temporal Prince In the Primitive Times there was no such thing as either Oath or Promise of Obedience to Superiours in Ordinations and it was not before the End of the 7th Century that a Promise of Obedience was requir'd yet Charles the Great found ill Effects of this and so got it to be condemned
here while he is in England he will condemn these treasonable Doctrines The ground upon which he condemns them is also suitable to the Condemnation it self For he says that this is the Opinion of several Catholicks This was modestly expressed For tho it is true that several of those he calls Catholicks are of this mind yet all Catholicks are not of it So that the Doctrine of murdering Kings is at least a probable one and since the Decrees of the Church of Rome for the deposing of Princes fall not only on those that are Hereticks themselves but even on the Fautors and Favourers of Hereticks I do not see how his Majesty's Life is secured For besides the Protection and Liberty that he grants to Hereticks of his own Dominions he hath received and encouraged the Refuges of another Prince which is to be a Favourer of Heresy of the worst sort So that if Innuendoes were in fashion I do not see how our Author could defend himself against an Indictment of Treason or at least against an Information Our Author to let us see how wary he is in his Concessions as he calls them ends the Paragraph with another It shall be granted here For it is plain he will not loose an inch of all the Papal Pretensions but will preserve them entire to a better time XXXIX Our Author pretends that Q. Elizabeth's Supremacy was carried much higher than had been granted by the former Clergy under K. Henry the 8th The Allegation is false for the Supremacy was carried much higher under King Henry than it was under Queen Elizabeth who as she would not accept of the Title of Head of the Church so she explained her Supremacy both in her own Injunctions and in the Acts of Convocation and Parliament that followed in so unexceptionable a manner that our Author himself hath nothing to object to it He seems also to infinuate as if the King's Supremacy were asserted by us as a Grant of the Clergy whereas we pretend to no such thing The Civil Supremacy that we ascribe to our Princes is founded on the Laws of God on the Rules of Humane Society on the Laws of England and on the Practice of the Church for many Ages and King Henry receiv'd no new strengthning of his Title by the Act of the Clergy which did not confer any new Authority on him but only declared that which was already inherent in him XL. Our Author enters into a long Discourse to prove the Invalidity of Orders granted in our Church which he doth so weakly and yet as he doth all other things so tediously and with so much Confusion that I have no mind to follow him in all his wandrings He seems to question the Authority of Suffragan Bishops who though they were limited as to their Iurisdiction yet as to their Order they were the same with the other Bishops The Proceedings in Queen Mary's Time were too full of Irregularity and Violence to be brought as Proofs that the Orders given by King Edward's Book were not valid In a word the Foundation of that false Opinion of some of the Church of Rome was that ever since the Time of the Council of Florence the Form in which Priests Orders were conferred was believed to be the delivering the Sacred Vessels with a power to offer Sacrifices for the Dead and Living So they reckoned that we had no true Priests since that Ceremony was struck out of our Ordinal But the folly of all this is apparent since Men began to examine the Ancient Rituals and those which have been published by Morinus shew that as this Rite is peculiar to the Roman Church so it was not received before the Ninth Century And since all Ordinations during the first Eight Centuries were done by the Imposition of Hands and Prayer then there can be no reason to question our Orders since we retain still all that the Ancient Church thought necessary As for the common Observation of our Ordinals not being enacted by Queen Elizabeth before the Eighth Year of her Reign it hath been so oft made and answered that I am 〈…〉 see our Author urge it any further Would he that hath disputed so much against the Civil Authorities medling in Matters Sacred annul our Orders because the Law was not so clearly worded with relation to that part of our Offices The most that can possibly be made out of this is that the Ordinations were not quite legal so that one might have disputed the paiment of the Fruits But this hath no relation to us as we are a Church in that the Book of Ordinations having been annexed to the Book of Common-Prayer in King Edward the Sixth's Time the reviving of the Book of Common-Prayer in Queen Elizabeth's Time was considered as including the Book of Ordinations Though it s not being expresly named this gave occasion to Bonner to question the validity of them in Law. Upon which the Explanatory Act passed declaring that it had been the Intention of the Parliament to include that in the Book of Common-Prayer So that this Act only declared the Law but did not create any new Right I have now gone over all that I judged most material in this tedious Book The darkness of the stile the many unfinished Periods the frequent Repetitions the many long Quotations to very little purpose above all the intricate way of Reasoning made it a very ungrateful thing to me to wrestle through it In it one may see how much a Man may labour and study to very little purpose For how unhappy soever the Author hath been in his pains it cannot be denied but he hath been at a great deal to compass it But a Man that neither sees things distinctly nor judges well of them the more he toils about them he entangles himself and his Reader so much the more So that never was so much pains taken to less purpose If our Author gives us many more Books of this size both as to Sincerity and good Reasoning he will quickly cure the World of the Mistake in which they were concerning him He passed once for a Learned Man and he had passed so still if he had not taken care to let the World see by so many repeated Essays how false a Title he hath to that Reputation which had fallen upon him But it seems his Sincerity and good Judgment are of a piece Otherwise as he could not obtrude on the World the falsehoods concerning latter times and the Ignorance of Antiquity that appears in all his Books so when so many have been at the pains to discover both his Mistakes and his Impostures He would either have confessed them or some way excused them But it is no wonder to see a Man that dissembled so long with God and that lied so oft to him serve the World now as he did his God for so many Years I pray God touch his Heart and give him a Repentance proportioned to the heinousness of his Sins by which he hath given so much Scandal to the Atheistical sort of Men who from him must be tempted to draw strange Consequences And he hath certainly brought a greater Reproach on that Church to which he hath gone over than all the Services he can ever render them in his useless and confounded Writings will be able to wipe off But to whom sovever he hath been a Reproach our Church hath no share in it since of him and of such as he is we must say They went out from us but they were not of us For if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us FINIS P. 82. ad finem From p. 140. Page 141. Adorat of the Euchar. p. 28. P. 139. Ephes. 5. 24. Col. 3. 20. Page 87 88. 2 Chron. 17. 7. 2 Chron 9. 5 8. V. 11. 2 Chron. 29. 5. V. 34. 2 Chron. 30. 23. Numb 9. 10. Ezra 7. 25. Nehem. 13. 28. Ludolph P. 20. lin 12. P. 21. Hist. Reform P. 1. Re◠Bo. 2. n. 10. Ibid n. 24. Nam qui Reginae odio vel speratae sec dum forsan notae futurae conjugis illecib◠titillatione Regem agi putant ij ex cordes plane toto quod aiunt coelo errare videntur Ibid. P. 22. Cott. Lib. Vit. B. 13. P. 23. ◠25. Printed in the Cabala P. 26. P. 28. P. 39. 25 Henry 8th n. 14. P. 41. Hist. Reform Rec. b. 2. n. 37 38 39. P. 51. P. 78 79. P. 57. P. 58. P. 64. P. 68. P. 71. P. ibid. P. 72. P. 84. P. 90. P. 93. P. 9◠P. ibid. P. 108. P. 110. P. 111. P. 119. P. 127. P. 134. P. 135. P. 142. P. 157. P. 160. Ibid. Tolet. can 10. §. 75. c. 13. 1040. Vita Gul. Abb. Dijon c. 4. P. 162. P. 176 273. P. 187. P. 208. P. 120. P. 2.