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diminution of the Episcopal Power but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ She caused this Act to be repealed leaving the Bishops to depend on their former i. e Divine Institution and to act in all things which belonged to their Jurisdiction in their own Names and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
but I know not of any Henrician Creed incorporated into our Faith The Romanists have a Creed Younger by some Years then King Henry but nothing is a part of our Faith but what sprung up with Infant-Christianity It is therefore a wild Inference that because we own the King to be Supreme Head of the Church therefore We make the Christian Religion mutable Did we make Acts of Parliament the Rule of our Faith there would be ground for such an Objection For then an Article of Faith might be enacted and repeal'd at pleasure and He who was Orthodox in one Session might become an Heretic in the next But Scripture is the Rule of our Faith a Rule like it's Author unchangeable the same yesterday to day and for ever The Christian indeed is obnoxious to the power of the Prince but Christianity is without the reach of his Sword Nor has the King this influence over the external profession of Religion as he is the Ecclesiastical Head but as he is the Civil Supreme God has intrusted him as such with the power of the Sword with a command indeed to use it for the protection of the true Religion but with a natural liberty still of using it for the Protection of a false This Author I confess has a remedy against this namely some Temporal coactive power lodg'd in the Pope in order to dissolve upon Occasion the coactive power of the Prince But we do not envy him this Catholicon against Innovation Passive Obedience is our Principle and if this renders the legal Establishment of our Religion more obnoxious to the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate Yet it better secures our common Christianity Q. Mary therefore may repeal King Edward's Laws but unless she could repeal Christ's Law too Ridley's and Latimer's Religion will still be the same The only difference is that the Faith which before they defended from the Pulpit they now more effectually propagate at the Stake To conclude this point whilst Princes have the power of the Sword and Subjects are oblig'd to Non-resistance the Supreme Governor will have an influence over the outward State of Religion and He that complains of this repines against the Methods of God's providence It is no blemish therefore on the Reform'd Religion which is here dwelt upon by this Author that it went forward or backward under King Henry according as his different passions or Interests inclin'd him Whilst Q. Ann liv'd it had indifferent success saith Fox Here then saith our witty Observer the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and manag'd the Affairs of Religion accordingly Now admitting this were a truth which had escap'd him Yet the curious Editor I doubt not amongst his Collections has met with a Medal representing Donna Olympia with the Pope's Mitre on her Head and St. Peter's Keys in her Hands and on the Reverse the Pope with his Head drest like a Lady and a Spindle in his hand Be it also true that Cromwel a Laic had the total management of Ecclesiastical affairs under King Henry Yet any one Who is conversant in History knows that the administration of the Popedom has been in the Hands of more obnoxious Favourites § 86 What is said in the next Paragraph is not of more moment here then when first mention'd in Paragraph the 19th § 87 By Virtue of such Supremacy he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses Our prolix Author who never spares his own Labour or his Reader 's Patience has enlarg'd upon this point for 12 Paragraphs and is very copious against Sacrilege But I do not see how our Cause is concern'd in this charge Avarice and Sacrilege are as great Sins in our Homilies as they are in the Popish Canons and Cranmer and Ridley were as severe against robbing the Church as this Declaimer We are no more concern'd to defend King Henry's rapines then the Lusts some have charged him with Were the Suppression of Abbies as great a crime as it is here under false colours represented I do not see why we are more oblig'd to plead in it's favour than this Writer would think himself bound because he asserts the power of the Roman Patriarch to justifie the foul and unparallel'd enormities of those who have sat in St. Peter's chair But were the dissolution of Monasteries represented impartially it would be easie were it necessary to give it a fair appearance and it must be at last confest that the fault of King Henry was not so much in taking away those foundations of Superstition as in not applying all the Revenues as he did some and had done more if the Reformers had had more Influence over him to Uses truly Religious By Virtue of such a Supremacy he made orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage §. 99.100 of Fasts of Holydays of Election and Consecration of Bishops and Challeng'd a power of abrogating several other Ceremonies It ought to have been shewn that any Constitutions concerning these did ever oblige us but such as either were made and ordained within this Realm or such other as were induced into the Realm by sufferance consent and custom for until this Proposition laid down in the Statute a 25. of Hen. 8.27 c. be disprov'd the Assumption there that the State hath power to dispence with it's own Laws will be unshaken Ecclesiastical Canons with this Author is another expression for Papal Decrees the Autority therefore which supported them being justly taken away it is no wonder if they fell with it Amongst the Rites which King Henry commands to be observ'd till he shall be pleas'd to alter them Fox reckons paying of Tithes Where this Annotator observes that Tithes are here conceiv'd to be in the disposal of the Supreme Head of the English Church Now whether King Henry thought Tithes to be jure divino or not doth not concern the Reformation But what is here said of payment of Tithes doth not prove that he thought them alienable from the Clergy For he might by his Laws regulate the payment of them tho' he did not think them disposable in this Author's sense Several Statutes were made in his Reign for the better securing this Right of the Clergy In them a 27. Hen. 8. c. 20. Tithes are said to be due to God and the Church the detainers of them to have no regard of their b 32. Hen. 8. c. 7. duties to Almighty God And the c Ref. Leg. Tit. de Decimis cap. 1. Reformatio legum derives the Clergy's original right to them from the Laws of Christ § 101 By Virtue of such Supremacy he without any consent of the Clergy by his Vice-gerent Cromwel order'd that English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church The translation of the Bible was petition'd by the 2 d Bur. V. 1. p. 195. Houses of Convocation and the publication of it was included in that request This Act therefore had the consent of the
Order they had sufficient Autority to Consecrate him As for the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs it has no Divine Institution it rose upon the division of Provinces and the Kings of Western Churches did first give those Preheminences to some Towns and Sees a Vindic. of Ord. p. 77. c. Pamph. But then might not She at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction which he held only on her gift A. Bp. Br. We hold our Benefices by humane right our Offices of Priests and Bishops both by divine right and humane right But put the case we did hold our Bishopricks only by humane right is it one of Your Cases of Conscience that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing which they hold by humane right If one Man take from another that which he holds justly by the Law of Man he is a thief and a robber by the Law of God a Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 11. p. 489. Pamph. But the Autority of these Ordainers standing good one or two Bishops is not a competent Number for Ordination A. Bp. Br. The Commission for their Consecration limited the Consecrators to four when the Canons of the Catholic Church require but three Three had been enough to make a valid Ordination yea to make a Canonical Ordination b Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc 5. c 5. p. 451. Pamph. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops as it was made in Edward the 6th 's time so it was revok'd by Synod in Queen Mary's days and by no Synod afterwards restor'd before their Ordination Dr. Burn. It is a common place and has been handled by many Writers how far the Civil Magistrate may make Laws and give commands about Sacred things The Prelates and the Divines by the Autority they had from Christ and the warrant they had from Scripture and the Primitive Church made the Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal and the King and Parliament who are vested with the Supreme Legislative power added their Autority to them to make them Obligatory on the Subject Let these Men declare upon their Consciences if there be any thing they desire more earnestly than such an Act for Authorizing their own Forms and would they make any Scruple to accept of it if they might have it a Bur. Vindic. of Ordin p. 51. c. Pamph. But this Form was revok'd also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days and not by any Act restor'd till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops viz in 8. Eliz. 1. upon Bonner's urging hereupon that the Queen 's were no Legal Bishops Pamphlet it self in the next Page The new Ordinal when Arch-Bishop Parker was to be Consecrated by it did not want sufficient Lay-license having the Queen's nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it for which see Bishop Bramhal Pamph. For such Considerations as these it seems it was that the Queen in her Mandate for the Ordination of her new Arch-Bishop Parker was glad out of her Spiritual Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining to dispense and give them leave to dispense to themselves with all former church-Church-Laws which should be transgrest in the electing and consecrating and investing of this Bishop A. Bp. Br. There is a double power Ecclesiastical of Order and of Jurisdiction Which two are so different the one from the other as themselves both teach and practise that there may be true Orders without Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and an actual Jurisdiction without Holy Orders He leaves the Orders in the plain field to busy himself about the power of Jurisdiction which is nothing to the Question That which the Statute calls the Autority of Jurisdiction is the coercive and compulsory power of summoning the King's Subjects by Processes which is indeed from the Crown The Kings of England neither have any power of the Keys nor can derive them to others He need not fear our deriving our Orders from them a Tom. 4. Disc 7. p. 1000. As for the Dispensative clause it doth not extend at all to the Institution of Christ or any Essential of Ordination nor to the Canons of the Universal Church but only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of England The Commissioners authoriz'd by these Letters Patent to Confirm and Consecrate Arch-Bishop Parker did make use of the Supplentes or Dispensative power in the Confirmation of the Election which is a Political Act as appears by the words of the Confirmation but not in the Consecration which is a purely Spiritual Act and belongeth merely to the Key of Order b Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 453. Pamph. Notwithstanding this Regal Dispensation a Statute was afterwards made 8. Eliz. 1. c. to take away all Scruple Ambiguity or doubt concerning these Consecrations A. Bp. Br. It was only a Declaration of the Parliament that all the Objections which these Men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies and that all the Bishops which had been ordain'd in the Queen's time had been rightly ordain'd according to the Form prescrib'd by the Church of England and the Laws of the Land These Men want no confidence who are not asham'd to cite this Statute in this case c Ibid. p. 439. I have transcrib'd the very words of the Authors to shew the importunity of these Men who are not asham'd to transcribe not only the matter but the very form of those Arguments which have been so often confuted But there is I confess one thing new in this Chapter which seems as if reserv'd for this Writer He would prove that the Queens dispensation relates not to her own Laws but to the Laws of the Catholic Church The words in the Commission are Supplentes c. Siquid desit aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur So that the Clause extends only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of this Kingdom as the Learned a A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 453. Primate understands it But this Author with his wonted ingenuity omits the words per Statuta hujus Regni and then construes the Leges Ecclesiasticas to be the Laws not of the English but the Universal Church A Reply to Chapter the 13th A Reply to his former Chapters has made any Consideration of this needless He supposes he has prov'd that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy and I may be allow'd to suppose that he has not prov'd it He has indeed affirm'd that it had not Synodical Autority under King Edward and Queen Elizabeth and he had not ventur'd much farther had he affirm'd that there never were such Princes In this Chapter he has found Six Protestant Divines who are of Opinion that Princes may in cases extraordinary Lawfully Reform without or against
them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordinations of inferiour Clergy to their superiour Rites Liturgies c. As for the rights of the Secular power he layeth down this Rule p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are All actions civil all publick violations of Justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Infliction of Censures by Excommunication or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory i. e as he saith before to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy or some other way abett the censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law employed for regiment and cure of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth it before p. 239 is the Kings And lastly p. 241. he saith that the Catholick Bishops in time of the Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exteriour Jurisdiction and Power i. e the Royal. See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded p. 61. All which our Kings saith he assume to themselves is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it i. e of that regiment and p. 63 He comments thus on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see the Power is political the Sword is political all is political Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it And p. 92 he saith We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them without taking away I hope any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes And p. 119 We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them laws he means such Laws for observance of which Secular coaction might be used the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needful Doth not this Bishop mean here that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings dominions and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority only that they can use no coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments in the execution of them without his But see below § 22. The Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation See more of this § 35. N. 2. And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith It is coercive and compulsory and corrobatory Power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the external Court of the Church Why or under what pretence to prevent saith he the oppression of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquility of the Common wealth not therefore to examine what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to Gods word for this Princes are to learn from those Courts which belongs to Sovereign Princes Thus he Lastly see the Kings last Paper in the Isle of Wight p 3. where it is said That tho the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over mens persons or estates no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure Yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government so Christian men do still Princes and all they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons in receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining witnesses judging of crimes against Gods law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper enjoyning Penancies upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. Now I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Canons the same Church Discipline casting out of the Church or Excommunication c. they are and must be allowed still in Christian States being things which as Bishop Carleton saith Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done and these are means absolutely necessary Convening for the making of Canons Knowing the Fact for Excommunication therefore in case the Christian Prince will not call them they may assemble themselves when the Church's necessities require such Canons and when the Christian Secular Courts will not they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency but this in order to Church punishments only When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathenism i. e do these things without their leave against their prohibitions All the Plea that a Secular State subjecting it self to the Church can make for medling in such Spiritual affairs seems to be this that the Church shall not be troubled now as formerly to do all because the State with its more awing power will do something for it Which
usurped Papal Supremacy Examin Champ. 2. c p. 69. than these Bishops did retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy and that upon deprivation of their Bishopricks and Imprisonment of their persons some in King Edward's and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days retracting c I suppose for this reason because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just And Fourthly By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12 c. where in the Preface it is said That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question that part of the Body Politick called the Spirituality now being usually called the English Church is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermeddling of any exteriour person or persons to declare and determine all such doubts and where in the Act it is ordered that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop of the Province and there to be definitively and finally adjudged Finally i. e without any further appeal to the King Neither can it be shewed that expresly this authority or jurisdiction To repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed reformed c any Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding tho it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament was conceded or voted by the Clergy or pretended to be so but was built only by consequence upon the Clergy's recognizing him the supream Head of the Church of England as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies that was taken from the Pope was committed to the Community of the English Clergy or finally placed in the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury But you will find by what follows that it long rested not here but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King And as it was thus with the Clergy so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21 c. there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso Provided always this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted that your Grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendome or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquility from rapine and spoyl insuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf Not minding to seek for any reliefs succors or remedies for any wordly things and humane laws in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note Schism Guarded p. 63. That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation i. e from the Clergy of power meerly and purely Spiritual it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth II. Head § 26 II. VVE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the Kings Supremacy Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince After the Title then of Supream was thus yielded by the Clergy as likewise that they would thence-forward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supream It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1 c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th That the King shall have and enjoy united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted that such Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17 which runs thus Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and hath full authority to correct and punish all mannner of Heresies Errors Vices and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances that no Lay-man might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court which Ordinances or Constitutions standing in their effect did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesties being Supream Head of the Church and Prerogative Royal your Grace being a Lay-man And whereas albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished yet because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops Bishops c who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from your Royal Majesty it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceedings and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vice-gerent Commissaries c to be of little or none effect whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions as becometh them In consideration that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supream Head c to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical and to correct vice c May it therefore be Enacted that all persons as well Lay as those that are Married being Doctors of the Civil Law
who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor Commissary c may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit de Officio Jurisd omnium Judicum Rex tam in Episcopos Clericos c quam in Laicos plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest cum omnis Jurisdictio Ecclesiastica Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno eodem fonte derivantur § 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication Suspension and Deprivation ab officio of which see more below p. § 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising himself this power of the Keys but that he claimed this right which is contrary to the First Thesis that no Clergy-man being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without the leave and appointment of him the Supream Head of this Church nor any forbear to exercise where he the Head commanded it As before the Reformation the inferiour Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King On the King Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso as 't is called which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian may excommunicate sometimes tho not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali yet for the exteriour also see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13. But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. § 28 Again in vertue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences Dispensations Faculties Grants c for all Laws and Constitutions meerly Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but from the Clergy too and is committed to the Secular Power contrary to the Eighth Thesis The Statute saith thus That whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason that in all humane Laws in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament where you see the Parliaments Supremacy as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions joyned with the Kings have full power and authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm as the quality of the persons and matter shall require as also the said Laws to abrogate admit amplify or diminish Be it therefore Enacted That from henceforth every such Licence Dispensation c that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God necessary for your Highness or for your Subjects shall be granted in manner following that is to say the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty c. And if the foresaid Arch-Bishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences Dispensations that then upon Examination had in your Court of Chancery that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures your Highness shall command the Arch-Bishop to grant them c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction And it shall be lawful to your Highness for every such default of the said Arch-Bishop to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates or Persons to be named by your Highness as will grant such Licences and Dispensations Here the Supream Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament as recognized Supream Head of the Church and the Arch-Bishop made his Delegate and after the Arch-Bishop the King or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture what not § 29 By vertue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20 c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away and the Clergy are bound to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishoprick upon Penalty of incurring a Premunire and the Consecration is to be performed by such and so many as the King shall appoint A thing contrary to the Third Thesis and the Canons of former Superior Councils and ruining the Church when the Prince is Heretical See the Statute § 30 Again it is Enacted by the Statute above-mentioned 26. Hen. 8.1 c. That the King should have full power from time to time to visit repress reform correct and amend all such Errors Heresies c as is set down but now § 25. § 31 Again 25. Hen. 8.19 c. It is Enacted by the same authority That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial as I have set it down before § 23. § 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26 c. viz. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to Gods Word and Christs Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Arch-Bishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity now appointed or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England either by the one or by the other therefore is the latter not held necessary but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head in and upon the matter of Christs Religion and the Christian Faith c by his Majesties advice and confirmation under the Great Seal shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed obeyed observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tyed only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to Gods Word i. e when private men think them to be so Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to Gods word i. e when the setters forth deem them to be so To obey a thing defined according to Gods Word and to obey a thing defined as being according to Gods word are Injunctions very different § 33 Again whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12 c. set down before § 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Arch-Bishop of the Province It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19 c. First That
no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever Secondly That for lack of Justice in the Court of the Arch-Bishop Commissioners by the Kings Highness to be appointed shall have full power and authority to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same and no further Appeals to be made These Commissioners therefore appointed by the King are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Arch-Bishop in all Spiritual matters of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by Gods Word wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod or to the Patriarch § 34 Again 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament That no speaking doing or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by authority of the See of Rome by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or the Kings Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy From which all that I would note is this that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy and do declare that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them Again it is Enacted by Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540 are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and shall suffer pains of death by Burning Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy without any Appeal as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19 c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis And the Protestants in justifying this Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man Or A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People set forth by the King's Authority at that time or against the Six Articles which were in the same Act Established as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. the Publishing of which Act saith Lord Herbert p. 447. gave no little occasion of murmur since to revoke the conscience not only from its own Court but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law as is there Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14 c. set down §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts fore-quoted 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded § 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is That Henry the Eighth made no new Law See likewise his Vindic. p. 86. 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth were only declarative of old Law not enactive of new Law proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert and of the Lord Coke Reports Fifth Part. And 2ly Schism Guarded p. 61 62. That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso Fox the First of these if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke Reports §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. c. You shall find no such thing if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes You may find Appeals to the Pope or other Forreign Judge and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus to have been prohibited by former Laws that is in some particular Cases wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights Profits Securities or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor Vobis posteris vestris Regibus c. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhal's Vindic. p. 66. This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5 c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where upon pain of a Premunire all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome But this is in certain Cases only see Vindic. p. 81. Cases indeed Ecclesiastical but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects which all Ecclesiastical matters I hope neither are nor are pretended to be viz. these Cases Popes refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question Again The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the Kings assent whereby saith the Statute the Kings Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away and so the Realm destitute as well of Council as of Substance surely these are Temporal Considerations and so the Crown of England which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection but immediately subject to God in all things not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown and to none other should be submitted to the Pope c. the Regality that is in those Temporal things above named In these Cases Bulls c from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited as infringing the Civil Rights And to this Statute in such case it is said there the Lords Spiritual gave their consent But meanwhile making Protestations saith the Statute that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church And Richard the Second notwithstanding this Act was far from the denying the Popes Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it 2. Rich. 2.7 Again you may find perhaps Appeals Bulls c prohibited in general without the Kings content first obtained thereto But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them but only out of an intention to examine them first whether any thing were contained in them
prejudicial to the Temporal and Civil Rights and Emoluments and Priviledges of the Prince and of his Subjects that the Mitre might not encroach upon the Crown both which have their certain limits of Jurisdiction and may do wrong one to the other Such authority as this then in Church-matters you may find exercised by former Princes of England or perhaps some other power used by them against the Church and defended by the common Lawyers of those days more than is justifiable But on the other side I think you will not find either assumed by the Prince or allowed to him by any Statutes before the times of Henry the Eighth such Powers in Ecclesiastical matters as some of these following Namely A Power to correct and reform all Errors and Heresies in Religion by such persons as the Prince shall appoint to judge thereof half of them being Laicks repealing also the former course of tryal of them by the ordinary Church-Magistrates as you may see below § 39. A Power to make and reverse Ecclesiastical Laws alter the Church Liturgies publick Forms of administring the Sacraments Ordinals c without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or any lawful Church Authority A Power to hinder and prohibits the Clergy that they may correct or reform any such Heresies or may make or publish any such Ecclesiastical Decrees or Laws within the Kings Dominions without his consent thereto first obtained Without his Consent not to examine whether such their Constitutions might be any way prejudicial to the State Temporal for this were but meet and just but whether such be agreeable or repugnant to Gods Word and dangerous to the Peoples Salvation and Spiritual State A Power thus in all Causes Ecclesiastical Licences Faculties Dispensations to be the final Judge by himself or by his Court of Chancery or by some other Deputies whom he pleaseth to choose to whom Appeal may be made concerning what is agreeable or what repugnant to the Holy Scripture A Power to restrain all Forreign Appeals and Censures from thence not only in all Cases mixt with the Interests of the Temporal Government but also in all matters meerly Spiritual and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance A Power to prohibit or reverse any Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Councils Patriarchal or General tho in things wherein Temporal Regalities or Prerogatives or the Temporal safety and peace of the people is not concerned but as I said upon pretence of their being conceived to contain something repugnant to Gods Law A Power to hinder that no Ecclesiastical Governors may call any Synod or Assembly within his Dominions nor exercise in foro externo any Ecclesiastical Censures without his consent A Power to command such persons to be induced and instituted in Ecclesiastical Benefices and Dignities whom the lawful Ecclesiastical Power refuseth as Unorthodox or Uncanonical See Schism Guardâ—d p. 61.161 Vindic. p. 268. Lastly A Coactive Power in foro externo so far extended as that it leaves for the Clergy as independently belonging to them only an Internal Power or Jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience or an Habitual Power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments exercising the power of the Keys in foro conscientiae ordaining and degrading Ecclesiasticks but without any Liberty actually or lawfully to exercise the same in any Princes Dominions if he denyeth it without any Power allowed to the Clergy to summon Offenders in foro externo and to punish them with the Spiritual Sword either for their convicted crimes or for non-appearance and this whether Secular Princes either favour or oppose without any Power to call or keep any publick Assemblies for publick Worship for decision of Controversies in Religion for making Church Laws i. e such as prejudice no Temporal Rights and publishing and imposing the same Determinations and Canons upon Ecclesiastical Censures upon the Church's Subjects in the several Dominions of Princes whether they consent or resist Without any Power of their electing and ordaining future Clergy in the several Dominions of Princes Christian as well as others whenever these Princes shall propose or assent to the admission of no such persons as they I mean the lawful Church Authority shall judge Orthodox and capable Such Powers are not mentioned at least clearly by Bishop Bramhal to belong to the Clergy but seem to be swallowed in the Coactive Power of the Prince Such Powers were in the possession of the Church independently on Princes for the first Three Hundred Years Such Powers being translated to the Secular Governors when Christian do arm them when Christians Heretical to change and overturn the Church in their Dominions as they please whilst the Clergy ought not to contradict Such Powers are said to belong to the Prince since the Reformation and indeed without these the Reformation could not well have been effected and I think are given to them in the fore-quoted Statutes If these Powers are said not to belong to these Princes let them name which of these are not But Lastly such Powers cannot be shewed to have been given or been due to our Kings by the former Laws unless we will believe that the Laws of the Land then contradicted that Obedience which those Princes yielded to the Church or that those Princes even when most fallen out with the Church would voluntarily forego so many of their rights Thus much to the first Defence used by Bishop Bramh. §. 35. n. 3. That Henry the Eighth's Statutes were only declarative of the former Laws For the second thing said by him That King Henry the Eighth by these Statutes claimed only an External Coactive Power in Causes Ecclesiastical in foro contentioso if by External Coactive Power he meaneth the exercising of all those Powers which I have but now named with Coaction and the Material Sword then the Secular Prince seems to assume and exercise several of those Powers which are only the Churches rights But if by Coactive Power he meaneth only the Kings calling of the Clergy together to consult of Church Affairs and his assisting with the Secular Sword their Constitutions and Decrees and making their Laws his own by Temporal Mulcts and Penalties and compelling particular Clergy as well as Laity to do that which the Church declares to be their duty compelling I say with outward force for herein the Bishop seemeth to place the Kings Power in Spiritual matters See Schism Guarded p. 93. How can the Pope saith he pretend to any Coactive power in England where the Power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King And p. 92. The Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons c But they had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his Will the uttermost they could do was to separate him from their Communion And p. 166 Who can summon another mans Subjects to appear where they please and imprison and punish them for not appearing without his leave Likewise p. 168. and compare them with his former
to them That as for himself whatsoever he had pretended his Conscience was fraught with the Religion of his Fathers but being blinded with ambition he had been contented to make wrack of his Conscience by temporizing c. Which calls to my mind likewise the death of Cromwel the great Agent for Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days who then renounced the Doctrines in this time called Heresies and took the people to witness That he dyed in the Catholick Faith of the Holy Church and doubted not in any Sacrament thereof i. e. I suppose as the Doctrine thereof was delivered in those times to be seen in the Necessary Doctrine before mentioned See Fox pag. 1086. comp Lord Herbert p. 462. As for those of the Council who thus complyed not they were after some time expelled as Bishop Tonstal Wriothsley the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel Goodwin p. 242. And as the Kings chief Governors in the Council so his Under Tutors who had the nearest influence upon him Dr. Cox and Sir John Cheek were men much inclined to the Reformation the one whereof in Queen Elizabeth's days Was made Bishop of Ely the other being imprisoned in Queen Mary's days and upon it abjuring the reformed Religion afterward saith Goodwin pag. 287. became so repentant for it that out of extremity of grief he shortly languished and dyed Such were his nearest Governors And the Complexion of his Parliament for he had but one all his days continued by Prorogation from Session to Session § 105. n. 2. till at last it ended in the death of the King you may learn from Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 48. The Parliament saith he consisted of such Members as disagreed amongst themselves in respect of Religion yet agreed well enough together in one common Principle which was to serve the present time and preserve themselves For tho a great part of the Nobility and not a few of the chief Gentry in the House of Commons were cordially affected to the Church of Rome yet were they willing to give way to all such Acts and Statutes as were made against it out of a fear of losing such Church-lands as they were possessed of if that Religion should prevail and get up again And for the rest who either were to make or improve their fortunes there is no question to be made but that they came resolved to further such a Reformation as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends Thus he As for the Kings Supremacy how far now some of the complying Clergy extended or acknowledged the just power thereof § 105. n. 3. even as to Ordination and Excommunication and administring the Word and Sacraments I think I cannot more readily shew you than by setting down the Queries proposed concerning these things in the first year of this Kings Reign to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and other Bishops and Learned Men when assembled at Windsor for establishing a publick Order for Divine Service and the Arch-Bishops answer to them printed lately by Mr. Stilling fleet out of a Manuscript of this Arch-Bishop Iren. 2. Par. 8 chap. The first Query is Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given them of God To which the Arch-Bishop answers to the King first in general That all Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their Subjects as well concerning the administration of Gods word for the cure of Souls as concerning the ministration of things Political That the Ministers of Gods word under his Majesty be die Bishops Parsons c. That the said Ministers be appointed in every State by the Laws and Orders of Kings That in the admission of many of these Officers be divers comely Ceremonies used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and seemly fashion That there is no more promise of God that Grace is given in the committing the Ecclesiastical office than it is in the committing the Civil Then he answers more particularly That in the Apostles time when there was no Christian Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods word might be appointed c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundantly the Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometimes the people did choose such as they thought meet thereunto And when appointed by the Apostles the people of their own voluntary will did accept them not for the Supremity Impery or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people ready to obey the advice of good Councellors A second Query is Whether Bishops or Priests were first And if the Priests were first whether then the Priest made the Bishop He answers That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Religion The third Query Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scriptures or no And whether any other i.e. Secular person but only a Bishop may make a Priest He answers A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governors also and that by authority of God committed unto them and the people also by their Election The fourth Query Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and Priest or only appointing to the office be sufficient Answer In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for election or appointing thereto is sufficient The fifth Query Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to conquer certain dominions of Infidels having none but temporal learned men with him it be defended by Gods Law That he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there or no And also make and constitute Priests or no In the next Query which I omit for brevity sake is mentioned also the ministring Baptism and other Sacraments He answers to this and the next That it is not against Gods Law but contrary they ought indeed so to do The seventh Query Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what Crimes And whether they only may excommunicate by Gods law He answers A Bishop or a Priest by the Scriptures is neither commanded nor forbidden to excommunicate But where the Laws of any Region giveth him authority to excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such crimes as the laws have such authority in And where the laws of the Region forbiddeth them there they have none authority at all and they that be no Priests may also excommunicate if the law allow thereunto Thus the Arch-Bishop explains the Kings and Clergies power and right concluding That he doth not temerariously define this his opinion and sentence but remits the Judgment thereof wholly to his Majesty This Text needs no
Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat Regia authoritate editi In the thirty sixth of which Articles is also ratified the second corrected Form of Common-Prayer and the new Form of Ordination in these words Liber qui nuperrimè authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est continens modum formam orandi Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum Ecclesiae quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris maxime a Ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum gratiarum actione accipiendi approbandi posteritati commendandi sunt λ λ And also for the first new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments it must be granted that in the second year and second Parliament of the Kings Reign the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation gave their approbation and consent thereto as appears both by the Kings message to the Rebels of Cornwal where it is said That what-ever was contained in the new Common-Prayer-Book c. was by Parliament established by the whole Clergy agreed by the Bishops of the Realm devised Fox p. 1189 and by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner where it is said yet more fully That after great and serious debating and long conference of the Bishops and other grave and well learned men in the holy Scriptures one uniform Order of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments hath been and is most Godly set forth not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament and of all other the learned men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial Fox p. 1186. And see much-what the same said in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter Fox p. 1212. 6. ν That such consent and such Constitutions of the Clergy of this Realm being not to be denied at least it will follow that the Reformation as touching the Common-Prayer-Book from the second year of his Reign and as touching the other Articles of Religion from the fifth was regular and canonical as being the act of the Clergy § 111 Thus have I here put you together the ordinary defence excepting the ultimum refugium The Reply thereto That Princes may reform in matters of Religion and of Faith without and against the major part of their Clergy of which hereafter which is made for the regularity of Edward the Sixth's Reformation To which now consider with me what it seemeth may reasonably be replyed tho some things cannot be so fully cleared till I have given you the rest of the Narration of this Kings Proceedings to which therefore I must refer you for them Reply to α To α then I answer That the Arch-Bishop acted not in the setting forth of these Injunctions as the Metropolitan but as one of the Sixteen Councellors whom Henry the Eighth nominated for the Government of his Son and in the same manner as he would have acted had he been Bishop of Asaph or Bangor Neither are the Injunctions grounded at all upon the Metropolitan's assent but on the Kings Supremacy nor do they make any mention of him or his authority but only of the Council in general and of their advice as you may see in what is before related § 108. Neither were those Canons being of humane constitution only conceived either by King Council or this Arch-Bishop to be of any force under this Regal Supremacy But secondly Suppose them in force and these Injunctions published by the Metropolitan's authority yet is not such authority made valid in such things when single without the concurrence of his Bishops by any such Canon For the very same Canon that saith Nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant Episcopi c. saith also Nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum Paraeciis Sic enim unanimitas erit See Can. Apost 35. Thirdly lastly every thing set forth by the advice of this Council is not necessarily so by the Arch-Bishops advice or vote because he is one of the Council For here the vote of the major part who were all Lay-men save himself and one Dr. Wotton if Bishop Tonstal's vote was cast out tho it were contrary to his vote bears the name of the whole § 112 To β. To β. That the advice of many Bishops was used in many of the Kings Injunctions unless in that touching the new Form of Common-Prayer is not evident that the advice of some Bishops was used in all is credible but those such as were presumed to be of the same inclinations with the King and Council as whatsoever colour the State is of it cannot want some Clergy of the same complexion For Example Cranmer and Ridley now called to consutation but Gardiner Tonstal Bonner Heath c. shut out and in Queen Mary's days contra That the advice of many Bishops used is not sufficient for to impose Laws on the rest where all have a decisive vote and where the legislative power lies in the major part viz. in a Synod to prevent Innovations by such Prelates as are singular in their opinions § 113 To γ. That King Edward claimed by his Supremacy according to the power which To γ. as I have shewed above § 39. c. was judged then to belong to it the giving of Laws to his Clergy not only for rectifying their practice but Doctrines only using the assistance of such Divines or other learned men as he thought fit to single out for this purpose as you may see In his prescribing the Doctrine of the Homilies unto them and also Before §. 108. In his injoyning them that whatsoever else should come from him they should see and cause it faithfully to be observed In his silencing the Ministery till something were drawn up by certain Bishops and other learned men congregated by his authority that should put an end to all controversies in Religion before § 109 In the stile of his Proclamation before the order of the Communion where he saith We would not have our Subjects so much to mislike our judgment as tho we could not discern what was to be done c. God be praised we know both what by his word is meet to be redressed and have an earnest mind by the advice of whom of our most dear Uncle and other of our privy Council with all diligence to set forth the same and In the last Articles to the Bishop of Winchester drawn up saith the Kings Diary by Bishop Ridley Pullâ—r 8. l. and Secretary Sir W. Peters which required his Subscription to several points of
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
as particularly that 1. Edw. 6.2 mentioned before § 40 Yet so it was that all the chief Acts that King Edward's Parliaments or Clergy had made concerning the Reformation were now revived Sec 1. Eliz. â— c. 2. and all that Queen Mary's or Henry the Eighth's save in the matter of Supremacy Parliaments or Clergy had done against it was repealed But this §. 179. n. 3. Bâ—t nâ—t by the Clergy tho done in spiritual matters was done by the sole authority of the Queen and her Parliament without obtaining any Synod to reverse the contrary decrees of the former Synods under those two Princes nay further whilst all the Bishops that fate then in Parliament openly opposed these Innovations Cambden Hist Eliz. p 9. By her own sole authority the Queen likewise published certain Injunctions to the Clergy And now the Regal Supremacy being thus restored only by the Civil power an Oath of Supremacy was also drawn up and imposed on all Ecclesiastical persons upon penalty of the Refuser's losing all their Ecclesiastical promotion benefice and office 1. Eliz. 1. c. And so this Oath being unanimously refused by all the Bishops that then sate save only the Bishop of Landaff I say all that then sate For by reason of a contagious sickness that then reigned within less than the space of a twelve-month saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Mary p. 81. almost one half of the English Bishops had made void their Sees three Bishopricks having been void from 1557 three Bishops dying some few weeks before the Queen three not long after one on the same day which with the death of so many of the Priests also in several places did much facilitate the way saith he to that Reformation that soon after followed they were all ejected out of their Bishopricks and with them of the chief of the Clergy fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Deans twelve Arch-Deacons six Abbots Camb. p. 17. fifty Prebendaries lost their Spiritual Preferments Meanwhile many others saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Qu. Eliz. p. 115. who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome dispensing with themselves in outward conformities upon a hope of such revolutions in Church-affairs as had hapned formerly § 180 Here that we may examine the lawfulness of the ejection of these Prelates for refusing such Oath The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy The unlawfulness there of upon which depends the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Acts of the Clergy succeeding them I will first set you down the form of the Oath which was this I do testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm and therefore I do utterly renounce all forreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and do promise that from henceforth I shall assist and defend to my power all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queens Highness or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm § 181 This Oath you see consists of two parts a Supremacy attributed and professed to the Prince Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend and a Supremacy denyed and renounced to any Forreign power And that I may speak more distinctly in this matter 1. As to the first of these thus much is freely conceded That the Civil Magistrate hath a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs and that such as none other hath namely this An external coactive power or jurisdiction committed to him by God to enjoyn to his Subjects the observance of the Laws of the Church and of the Laws of God as they are declared to him to be such by the Church and to restrain and punish the transgressors of them whether Clergy or Laity within his Dominions with the Civil Sword which God hath put only into his hands So that no Canons of the Church can be by the Ecclesiasticks or others executed or enforced on the Subject as Laws viz. with external Coaction pecuniary or corporal mulcts or punishments c. before the Secular Prince is pleased to admit such Canons and enroll them amongst his Laws or to concede such coactive power to his Clergy How far also the Kings Supremacy may extend over all Ecclesiastical persons concerning the Investiture and presentation of them so long as their canonical sufficiency is not denyed by the Clergy to such Temporal Church-Possessions as either Princes or others by their permission have conferred on the Church about which hath been in ancient times great Controversy between several Kings of England and the Pope I meddle not to determine Let this for the present be granted as much as any Prince hath claimed It is likewise conceded that in those words of the Oath only Supreme Governor in Spiritual things there is not any thing that expresly extends the Regal Supremacy any further which may be the only supreme power m Ecclesiasticals in one respect and not in another Nor no more is there in the thirty seventh Article of the Church of England which expounds the Kings Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All which he may do and yet be tyed in all things to obey the Church her Laws and to leave to her the sole judgment who are these evil-doers as to the breaking of Gods Laws or who stubborn and heretical persons And such Regal Supremacy will well consist with another either with a domestick Supremacy of his own Clergy in judging Controversies and promulgating Laws in meerly Spirituals or also with a forreign Supremacy and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch over all the Bishops of his Patriarchy in what Prince's Dominions soever or of a General Council over all Provincial or National Churches If therefore only such a Regal Supremacy as this were intended in the Oath it cannot be justly refused viz. If the Oath should run thus I do testify that the King is the Supreme c. as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal that is as this Supremacy is expounded in Article thirty seventh to rule with the Civil Sword all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers And if this word such be inserted in the words following And I do testify that no forreign Prince Prelate c. ought to have any such jurisdiction c. And Ergo I do utterly renounce all such forreign Jurisdiction c. You will say what is gained to the King by an Oath so limited This that no Forreign or Domestick
unto him and having their consent and direction in it may in case of intermission or corruption restore such practice to its primitive lustre tho he do it against the major part of his Clergy or Synod as you may see p. 83. 3. He intimates That if the Reformation be in such point of Doctrine as hath been before defined in a General Council or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced the King consulting with some of his learned Bishops may enjoyn it without or against a Synod 4. But he saith That if the Reformation be in such points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner the King only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted So he saith p. 85. That the King cannot determine Heresies From this by necessary consequence it follows That if any point of doctrine hath been determined by a former General Council I add or lawful superior Council the King neither against nor without I add nor with the major part of his Clergy can reform or establish the contrary of such doctrine § 207 Now to reflect op the Drs. Limitations Concerning the two last I leave it to your judgment whether in the instances made above the contrary to several doctrines determined by former lawful General or other superior Councils have not been established by our reforming Princes without or also against the major part of their Clergy And again whether other doctrines not determined by any former lawful Council yet have not thus also without any such consent been established by them Both which Dr. Heylin condemneth Again concerning all these limitations I ask when all or the major part of Clergy affirmeth that such things are not corruptions in manners nor abuses in Government that such practices are not primitive nor universal that such doctrines are not formerly so determined and none or a smaller part of the said Clergy saith the contrary How will Dr. Heylin here direct the Kings Supremacy Will he here allow him after hearing all to follow his own judgment Or that of the fewer against his Synod or the major part thereof It seems in some things he will not allow it See Limitation the fourth and it seemeth unreasonable to be allowed in any of the rest For why should not a Synod discern corruption in manners as well as he or some few Or why may not he mistake and miscall their reason passion or partiality But if the Prince follow the major part of his Clergy in their judgment of what are corruptions what are formerly defined c. then cannot the Prince be said or supposed to reform such corruptions c. against this major part whose judgment in this Reformation of them he followeth § 208 The last I shall propose to your considering is Dr. Fern Of Doctor Pern Exam. Cha. 9. c. 19. §. p. 290. who speaketh somewhat more particularly in this matter He first affirmeth indeed in behalf of the Clergy that the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline And That they have a coercive power in a Spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for Spiritual binding and loosing will reach And that this power is coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church I suppose therefore upon Christian Princes also if obstinately gain-saying And 20. § He quoteth 1. Eliz. 1. That the judging of Heresy is restrained for Heresies past to the Declaration of the first General Councils and for such as shall arise to the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation And § 15. he saith It is a mistake to think that the Prince by his supreme power in Spiritual things is made supreme Judge of Faith and decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Again Ibid. he affirmeth that the Prince's giving publick establishment to the doctrine defined by the Clergy and evidenced to him is not in order to our believing as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us in saying our belief follows the State but to our secure ind free profession and exercise of Religion For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe as Pastors of the Church are 1. Cor. 3.9 And § 21. That we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church who have commission to do it in order to our believing and must yield obedience to the establishment of the Sovereign either by doing and conforming thereunto or by suffering for not doing according thereunto And § 25. That it is the office of the Pastors of the Church to evidence what is truth and conformable to Scripture and that in order both to our and to the Prince's believing Again § 21. he affirmeth that the immediate and ordinary judgment of matters of Religion belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that a secondary judgment is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Laws that which is evidenced to him upon the judgment and advice of the Pastors of the Church or as § 23. for his being satisfied that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the law of Christ before he use or apply his authority to the publick establishment of it and this upon a double reason the first of which is In respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss as the Kings of Israel and Judah were § 209 But then he saith these things further in behalf of the Supremacy of the Prince which seem to reduce the Clergy's power into a very narrow compass and to render it uneffective toward the Subjects of the Church unless thro the coacting of the Prince He saith then 1. That Princes are not bound to follow the directions of the Clergy any further than they are evidenced to them See 9. c. § 21. Princes are not meer Executioners of the determinations and decrees of the Church Pastors nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion whatsoever they define and propound for such But they are to do their work so as it may by the demonstration of truth be evidenced to the Sovereign Power That Princes are not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod where they fear the Synod will not go aright 2. c. 8. § Reformation of Gods Worship saith he may be
power in things of which We our selves doubt not but they are purely Spiritual That there are some Powers merely Spiritual appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Prince no true Son of the Church of England will deny but now altho' the substance of those Powers be immediately from God and not from the King as those of Preaching Ordaining Absolving c. Yet whether these are not subject to be limited inhibited or otherwise regulated in the outward Exercise of them by the Laws of the Land and the Autority Regal is the thing quaestion'd This cannot perhaps be better exprest then in the words of the Reverend Bp. Sanderson The King doth not challenge to himself as belonging to him by Virtue of his Supremacy Ecclesiastical the power of Ordaining Ministers excommunicating scandalous Offenders or doing any other act of Episcopal Office in his own Person nor the power of Preaching Administring the Sacraments or doing any other act of Ministerial Office in his own person but leaves the performance of all such acts of either sort unto such persons as the said several respective powers do of divine right belong to viz. of the one sort to the Bishops and of the other to the Priests Yet doth the King by Virtue of that Supremacy challenge a power as belonging to him in the right of his * Episcopacy not prejud to Reg power p 22 Crown to make Laws as well concerning Preaching Administring the Sacraments and other acts belonging to the Function of a Priest as concerning Ordination of Ministers proceeding in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognisance in the Spiritual Courts and other acts belonging to the Function of a Bishop to which Laws as well the Priests as the Bishops are subject and ought to submit to be limited and regulated thereby in the Exercise of those their several respective Powers their claim to a Jus Divinum and that their said several powers are of God notwithstanding Now to apply this That the deciding Controversies of Faith and Excommunicating Offenders c. are the proper Province of the Clergy we deny not but that the indicting Synods in order to such Matters or making Laws to regulate the Exercise of them are purely Spiritual is not so undoubted as He would perswade us Again that the Spiritual Autority which is to be exercised in the Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions can be derived from none but those spiritual persons who were invested with that Autority and power of delegating it to others is willingly allow'd but that collation to Benefices can be the act of none but the Clergy will not be hence infer'd For the Spiritual Autority it self and the application of it to such an Object are very different things The power by which a Clergy man is capacitated for his Function is derived from the Bishop which ordains him but the applying this Power to such a Place the ordering that the Ecclesiastical Person shall execute that Autority which he deriv'd from the Church in such a peculiar part of the Kingdom is not without the reach of the Civil Jurisdiction and therefore Collation to Benefices in the sence this Author understands it should not have been reckon'd by him amongst those things of which it is not doubted but they are purely Spirituall Another power of which he abridges the Prince and by consequence would have to be esteem'd purely Spiritual is the deposing from the Exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy for transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons Now that the Secular Prince should have an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual matters to bind them by Temporal Punishments to the Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's determinations and decrees as he words it and yet that the Exercising this power their performing what they are obliged to by God should be without the reach of their Autority seems to me a paradox That the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times challeng'd such a power is plain from the undoubted testimony of the Learned Petrus de Marca * Cura principum Christianorum olim non solum Haereticorum furoros compressi contumacia Episcoporum aut Clericorum adversus Synodorum sententias rebellium ab externa potentia repressa sed etiam Principum studio prohibiti Episcopi ne legibus secularibus vel Canonibus violatis injuriam subditis inferrent De concord l. 4. cap. 1. par 2. Who tells us that by the care of Christian Princes Hereticks were represt the contumacy of Bishops and Clergy-men against the Decrees of Synods punish'd and Bishops restrain'd from oppressing their subjects by the violation of the Canons If we inquire how the Princes secur'd the Keeping of the Canons * Canonum custodiae duobus modis prospiciebant Principes tum delegatione Magistratuum qui vetarent ne quid contra Canones tentaretur tum exactis poenis à contumacibus si quid perperam gestum esset lb par 4. He tells us they did it by these 2 Methods 1st By delegating Magistrates to see they were observ'd 2ly By punishing those who were guilty of the breach of them And he particularly mentions Deprivation inflicted by the Secular power for violation of the Canons * In manifestissima violatione canonibus factam injuriam iis poenis Principes ulsciscebantur quae legibus irrogatae erant nempe expulsione à sede Deturbationem enim illam quae vacantem Ecclesiam redderet sui arbitrii esse putabant non autem regradationem vel dejectionem ab Episcopali dignitate quae erat poena mere Ecclesiastica Ib. par 6. For that they thought removal from the See within the reach of their Jurisdiction tho' not Degradation which is a punishment merely Ecclesiastical Which neither did the Reforming Princes ever think in their power to inflict And he * Ibid. there gives instances of Bishops so depriv'd And indeed this seems to be a Necessary branch of power which naturally flows from his being Custos Canonum which he is prov'd by this Author at large to be How far the Prince may abridge himself of this power by the laws of the Land I meddle not it suffices to shew that it is not originally a power merely Spirituall And from this and the former Instances the Reader will be able to judge the truth of that assertion That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal Come we now to that other assertion of his That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed States do forego to exercise Now if by the chiefest which he excepts he means preaching the word and administring the Sacraments Excommunicating and absolving neither do the Reformed States challenge the Exercise of these and as for others it will appear that the Princes of the Roman-Catholick
it remains therefore to examine whether he has been a more faithful Relator of our own History and what truth there is in his last Epistolary assertion that he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but what the Kings of England have foregone before Henry the 8th Now whatever in relation to a power in Spirituals is in this Discourse accus'd of Novelty seems easily reducible to these two Heads 1st A Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical denied to the Western Patriarch as appears by our Princes taking away all manner of Forreign Jurisdiction prohibiting all appeals to the See of Rome all Bulls from it and in generall all Intercourse with it 2ly The same Supremacy invested in the Sovereign as appears by King Henry's assuming the title of Head of the Church by the Kings making Ecclesiastical Laws by that Synodical act of the Clergy not to assemble or promulgate any Canons without his leave by that power granted to the King to visit Ecclesiastical persons and to reform Errours and Heresies by his collating to Benefices without consent of the Clergy and by hindring Excommunications in foro externo Now in Answer to this charge of Novelty It is confest that the Pope did for some Years usurp such a superiority but then as it is granted that he did de facto claim such a power so that it did de jure belong to him is denied and not only so but farther we affirm that he neither from the beginning challenged such a power nor was he afterwards in so full possession of it but that our Princes have upon Occasion vindicated their own right against all Papal or if he pleaseth Patriarchal Encroachments And here waving the dispute of right I shall confine my self to matter of Fact that being the only case here controverted Where 1st of the Supremacy of the Western-Patriarch That when Austin came over to convert the Saxons no such Supremacy was acknowledg'd by the British Christians is evident from the celebrated Answer of Dinoth Abbot of Bangor to Austin requiring such subjection Notum sit Vobis c. * Spelm. Conc. p. 108. Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every good pious Christian viz. to love every one in his degree and place in perfect Charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the Sons of God and for other Obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Vske who is to overlook and govern us under God This is farther manifest from the * Spelm A. C. 601. British Clergy twice refusing in full Synod after mature deliberation to own any such subjection That appeals to Rome were a thing unheard of till Anselms time appears from the application of the Bishops and Barons to him to disswade him from such an attempt * Inauditum in regno suo esse usibus ejus omnino contrarium quemlibet de Principibus praecipue Te tale quid praesumere Eadm p. 39.30 telling him it was a thing unheard of in this Kingdom that any of the Peers and especially one in his station should praesume any such thing That Legates from Rome were for 1100 Years unheard of in this Kingdom we may learn from a memorable passage in the same Historian concerning the Arch-Bishop of Vienna reported to have the Legantine power over England granted him A. C. 1100 * Quod per Angliam auditum in admirationem omnibus venit Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae Ead. p. 58. 41. The News of which being come to England was very surprizing to all people every one knowing it was a thing unheard of that any one should have Apostolical Jurisdiction over them but the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury And the event of that Legacy was suitable * Quapropter sicut venit ita reversus est à Nemine pro Legato susceptus uec in aliquo Legati officio functus Ibid. for as he came so he return'd being taken by no one for a Legate nor in any thing discharging the office of a Legate That the Church of Canterbury own'd no Superiour Bishop to her own but Christ appears from her being call'd * Ger. Dorob Coll. Hist Angl. 1663. 24. Col. 1615. 60. Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione and in another place Mater omnium Anglicanarum Ecclesiarum quae suo post Deum proprio laetatur Pastore That appeals to Rome were prohibited in King Henry the 2ds time is manifest from the famous Capitula of Clarendon amongst which this is one Article If any appeals shall happen they ought to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop and from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop shall fail in doing Justice the last Address is to be made to the King That Doctrines prejudicial to the Popes power were then publickly maintain'd appears from these Propositions amongst others censur'd by Becket 1st That none might appeal to the See Apostolick on any account without the Kings leave 2d That it might not be lawful for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop to depart the Kingdom and come at the Popes Summons without the Kings leave 3d. That no Bishop might Excommunicate any who held of the King in capite nor Interdict his Officers without the Kings leave Which propositions so censur'd are selected out of the Capitula of Clarendon to the Observation of which all the Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks even Becket himself amongst the rest tho' afterwards falling of had oblig'd themselves by a solemn Oath acknowledging them to be the customs of the King's Predecessours to wit Henry The 1st his Grandfather and others and that they ought to be kept inviolable by all To what party the Bishops were inclin'd in these differences betwixt the King and Becket we cannot better learn then from Baronius whose severe animadversion on these Praelates wherein he teaches us what Kings are to expect if they displease his Holiness and how dreadful his Fulminations be when they come out with full Apostolick vigour the Reader may peruse in the * Episcopi Angliae suffraganei Sancti Thomae literis ejusdem sui Archiepiscopi Apostolica legatione fungentis exagitati resilientes haud ut par erat parere mandatis salubres admonitiones suscipere Catholicae Ecclesiae utilitati consulere vendicantes eam à miscrrima servitute studuerunt sed ex adverso oppositi pro Rege contra ipsum scriptis verbis factisque repugnant ac tantum abest ut quod eorum muneris erat ad quod suis eos
literis excitaverat ipse Sanctus adversus Regem pro Ecclesia starent redarguerent comminarentur oâ—â—entantes quae in arcu sagittae paratae erant ad feriendum censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes ut potius adversus eundem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent telis oppeterent jurgiorum in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum Bar. An. A. C. 1167. Margin A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton de tribus Thomis in Thoma Cant. * Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tecte postulavit quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia aperte u surpavit nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurp'd viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England and again * Quid hoc est aliud nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papâ— what was this but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects So that according to this Author Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Popes Encroachments viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edv. 3. Stat de provisoribus 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1.2 4. stat 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6.8 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our * Cokes Inst l. 4. c. â—4 Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19. concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm * 1. Eliz. c. 1. and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all forreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Jurisdictions of the same Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiasticall Where 1st As to the title of Head of the Church we find that * Twisd c. 5. par 2. King Edgar was reputed and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum the Vicar of Christ and by his Laws and Canons assur'd the world he did not in vain assume those titles * Chap. 5. par 14. c. 6. par 8. That our Forefathers stil'd their Kings Patrons Defenders Governours Tutors and Protectors of the Church And the Kings Regimen of the Church is thus exprest by King Edward the Confessor in his laws Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriosis defendat Leg. Edv. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a priviledge delegated by him what he claim'd as a right deriv'd immediately from God * Vobis posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae justa sunt To you saith that Pope to the Confessor and your Successours the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power They challenge from St. Peter himself to be * 1 Pet. II. 13. Supreme and from St. Paul that * Rom. XIII 1. every Soul should be subject to them And the extent of their Regal power may be learn'd from St. Austin who teaches us * In hoc Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in Regno suo bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem Aug. contra Crescâ—n l. 3. c. 51. that the Divine right of Kings as such authorized them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion In pursuance of which 2ly As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy namely the Keyes of Order and Jurisdiction so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices is evident to any one who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant A Collection of the Laws made by Ina Alfred Edward Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Ethelred Canutus and others we have publish'd by Mr. Lambard in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith Baptism Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops Priests Marriage Observance of Lent appointing of Festivals and the like And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Autority which our Editor cannot justly decline I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Publish'd in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford in the Name of the Alumni of that Society This Author speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical makes this Inference from them * Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur quod ex iis constat etiam illis temporibus Reges Saxonicos Alfredum Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos quam in Laicos neque Ecclesiam quae in ipsorum ditione esset esse quid peregrinum vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam quod Anselmus Beckettus aliique deinceps insecuti acriter eontenderunt Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par 12. These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation because from them it is evident that the
as any one in the Vindication of the Churches rights and Yet He tells us q Epilog Pag. 391. that No-Man will refuse Christian Princes the Interest of protecting the Church against all such Acts as may prove praejudicial to the common Faith He holds as this Writer with great concern r Church Government pag. 390. observes that the Secular power may restore any law which Christ or his Apostles have ordained not only against a Major part but all the Clergy and Governours of the Church and may for a Paenalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho' they also be establish'd by another Law Apostolical Thus that considerative man who held not the Pope to be Antichrist or the Hierarchy of the Church to be followers of Antichrist ſ Church Government pag. 391. Bishop Taylour his next Author doth with the rest assert that the Episcopal Office has some powers annex'd to it independent on the Regal But then he farther lays down these Rules t Ductor Dub. l. 3. c. 3. r. 4. That the Supreme Civil-power is also Supreme Governour over all Persons and in all Causes u Ibid. r. 5. Hath a Legislative power in Affairs of Religion and the Church x Ibid. r. 7. Hath Jurisdiction in causes not only Ecclesiastical but also Internal and Spiritual y Ibid. r. 7. n. 9. Hath autority to convene and dissolve all Synods Ecclesiastical z Ibid. r. 8. Is indeed to govern in Causes Ecclesiastical by the means and measure of Christ's Institutions i. e. by the Assistance and Ministry of Ecclesiastical Persons a Ibid. r. 8. n. 6. but that there may happen a case in which Princes may and must refuse to confirm the Synodical decrees Sentences and Judgments of Ecclesiastics b Ibid. l. 3. c. 4. r. 8. That Censures Ecclesiastical are to be inflicted by the consent and concurrence of the Supreme Civil power The next Author cited is the Learned Primate Bramhal and We have here reason to wonder that one Who praetends to have been conversant in his Writings dares appear in the Vindication of a Cause which the Learned Author has so longe since so shamefully defeated As for the right of Sovereign Princes This Arch-Bishop will tell c Bp. Br. Works Tom. 1. p. 88. him That to affirm that Sovereign Princes cannot make Ecclesiastical Constitutions under a Civil pain or that they cannot especially with the advice and concurrence of their Clergy assembled in a National Synod reform errors and abuses and remedy Incroachments and Usurpations in Faith or Discipline is contrary to the sense and practise of all Antiquity and as for matter of Fact He will instruct him d Ibid. p. 76. that our Kings from time to time call'd Councils made Ecclesiastical Laws punish'd Ecclesiastical Persons saw that they did their duties in their calling c. From this Bishop's acknowledgment that the Bishops are the proper Judges of the Canon this Author that He may according to the Language of a * Educ p. 98. modern Pen as well waken the Taciturn with Quaestions as silence the Loquacious with baffling fallacies takes Occasion briskly to ask whether this Bishop doth not mean here that the Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the King's Dominions and use Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Autority But see saith He the Bishops depriv'd of the former power in the Reformation To which I answer that the power of which they were depriv'd in the Reformation was only of such an executing the Canons as carried with it pecuniary and corporal Punishments and this power the Bishop has told him they could not Exercise by their own Autority And here it were to be wish'd that our Author in reading this Bishop's Works had made use of his advice e Ibid. p. 156. To cite Authors fully and faithfully not by halves without adding to or new moulding their Autorities according to Fancy or Interest The next Advocate against Regal Supremacy is King Charles the First But if we may take a draught of that Blessed Martyr's Sentiments from his own Portraiture f E I K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adv. To the Pr. of Wales He did not think his Autority confin'd to Civil Affairs but that the true glory of Princes consists as well in advancing Gods Glory in the maintenance of true Religion and the Churches good as in the Dispensation of Civil power with Justice and Honour to the publick Peace g Ibid. cap. 17. He thought himself as King intrusted by God and the Laws with the good both of Church and State and saw no reason why he should give up or weaken by any change that power and Influence which in right and reason He ought to have over both He thought himself oblig'd to preserve the Episcopal Government in its right Constitution not because his Bishops told him so but because his Judgment was fully satisfied that it had of all other the best Scripture grounds and also the constant practice of Christian Churches He was no Friend of implicit Obedience but after he has told the Prince h Adv. to the Pr. of Wales that the best Profession of Religion is that of the Church of England adds I would have your own Judgment and reason now seal to that Sacred Bond which Education hath written that it may be judiciously your own Religion and not other Mens Custom or Tradition which you profess He did not give that glorious Testimony to the Religion established in the Church of England that it was the best in the World not only in the community as Christian but also in the special Notion as Reformed and for this reason requuired and intreated the Prince as his Father and his King that he would never suffer his Heart to receive the least check against or disaffection from it till he had first tried it and after much search and many disputes thus concluded These are the Sentiments of our Authors in which if I have been over-long the Reader will excuse me that I choose rather to intermix something useful from these great Pens then to entertain him altogether with the Paralogisms and prevarications of this Writer There is nothing that remains considerable under this first Thesis but his Sub-sumption that whatever powers belong'd to the Church in times of persecution and before Emperours had embrac'd Christianity are and must still be allowed to belong to her in Christian States Which I conceive not altogether so Necessary that it must be allowed and I am sure by our Authors it is not As for Convening of Councils the power of greatest concern Bishop i Serm. of the right of Assemblies Andrews to this Quaestion What say you to the 300 Years before Constantine How went Assemblies then Who call'd them all that while returns this Answer Truly as the people of the Jews did before in Aegypt under the tyranny of Pharaoh They were
need to meddle with any other since We never did own the Autority of any but what were so establish'd I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph §. 25.26 because what is said there is unsaid in the 26th But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark He supposes that Gardiner retracted his acknowledgment of a Regal Supremacy for this reason because by sad experience he saw it much enlarg'd beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintain'd it just § 46 But else-where this same Author will suppose that Gardiner was ensnar'd in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's and this Sense which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure § 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarg'd In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been perform'd in this Chapter We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanc'd then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme promis'd to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent and requested that the Old ones might be Reform'd The rest of his Discourse is only flourish which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been compriz'd in fewer Words and this would have heightned our Esteem of the Author tho' it might have deprest the price of the Pamphlet A Reply to his 3d Chapter § 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament Repeal'd and not Repeal'd make no difference with him All the Expressions which seem to extend the Supremacy are invidiously rak'd together and those which limit it craftily supprest The Statutes are put upon the rack and because the Text doth not speak plain enough our Author has added his Gloss He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction but restor'd the Old nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy who certainly did not delude the King with the Complement of an empty Title The extent of this Jurisdiction annex'd to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction here ascrib'd to the Prince might have been spar'd if he had attended to an easie distinction frequently met with in our Writers They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience or External that which is practis'd in exterior Courts That proceeds by Spiritual Censures this by force and corporal Punishments That is appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Secular power this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme and from him deriv'd to Ecclesiastic Governours Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annex'd to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum tho' what is urg'd thence needs no Reply that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church § 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21 c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses Dispensations Faculties c. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God is not only taken from the Pope but the Clergy too Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign Every Government has a right to dispence with it's own Acts and nothing farther is challeng'd in that Statute No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom but from the Legislative power of the Realm and the same power which gave them life might dispense with them This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesom Acts made in King Henry's Reign but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince but his Ancient Right for some Years indeed usurp'd by the Pope but now vindicated This is the true import of that Statute which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope to whom it never rightly belonged but not from the Clergy it being expresly provided in the Act that all Licenses be granted by the Arch-Bishop or 2 Spiritual Persons In case of the Arch-Bishop's refusal the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis it ought the rather to be excus'd since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observ'd that that Thesis is contrary to it self His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law this Act I am sure whence he infers it positively asserts the King to be Supreme § 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirm'd by the Patriarch is taken away The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome otherwise cal'd the Pope to or for the office of Bishop or Arch-Bishop of this Realm But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as ow no Subjection to any Patriarch and therefore have no necessity of being confirm'd by him Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity for it supposes none The King's Presentation to a Bishoprick against which he is so warm was no new Usurpation but an ancient Right had he liv'd some Centuries before the Reformation he would have had this Grievance to complain of The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated but for the Reader 's mortification The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv p. 65. as in it The said Arch-Bishop when no Arch-Bishop had been mention'd before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period
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
Protestant Religion passed as an Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament when all the Bishops therein present opposed it See Camden's An. 1. Eliz. And 1. Eliz. 1. c.. § 13 The Seventh Thesis That Thesis 7th tho Secular Princes were allowed to have a decisive power in some matters of Faith such as are no way formerly determined which is contrary to the First and Second Thesis yet for such points as have been formerly determined on any side here since a National Synod may not define any such thing contrary to former superior Councils much less may any Secular person define any such things contrary to those Councils or also contrary to a National Synod § 14 The Eighth Thesis That Thesis 8th as touching Divine truths and matters of Faith spoken of hitherto so now for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution and not Divine Command Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any new Canons concerning the Government and Discipline of the Church contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them at least so many of these as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his civil Government nor the National Synod can shew some way more prejudicial to their particular Church than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches See this Thesis proved in Chur. Gov. 2. Part. § 63. And 3. Part. § 13. n. 3. And § 27. n. 2. § 15 These Theses being set down whereby to judge of the Regularity of a Reformation let us now view the carriage thereof here in England in the time of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and how far it hath deviated from them Touching which Reformation I would desire you to read together with these â—ay Observations what is related in defence thereof by Dr. Hammond Schism 7. c. Dr. Fern in Considerations touching the Reformed Church 2. and 9. Chap. And Dr. Heylin's Treatise called the Reformation of the Church of England Justified lest I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable in this matter And here §. 16. 1. Three Heads of this Discourse confining my Discourse to Three Heads I will first give you an account how the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's days were at the beginning induced to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy in Spiritual matters after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly and how far only at first they seem to have allowed it I say after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly Because some Supremacy namely this of assembling a Synod of the Clergy upon Temporal punishments in case of Disobedience by their Writs the ancient form of which see in Dr. Heylin p. 4 when any urgent occasions required as likewise of enjoyning to all their Subjects as well Clergy as others upon Temporal Penalties the observance of the Decrees and Constitutions of such Synods or of any other former lawful Councils such as the Clergy shall acknowledge to have been the Decrees thereof these Supremacies I say the Princes of this Land before Henry the Eighth had and exercised neither was any such Supremacy usurped or interrupted by the Pope Neither do the Roman Doctors deny such an external coactive Jurisdiction of Princes in Spiritual Affairs 1. as to bind their Clergy upon Temporal Mulcts to meet together in Council when the same Princes shall think it necessary the Ecclesiasticks being their Subjects as well as Christs Clergy and on this account bound to obey them as well as their Spiritual Governors on the other and there being often good cause of their assembling in order to the peace and welfare of the civil State committed to the Princes care because this dependeth much on the right Government of the Church committed to theirs Provided only that these Assemblies be so timed and disposed by the Prince as that the authority which our Saviour hath committed to the Church concerning the assembling of the same persons be no way disturbed thereby For doubtless when both at the same time cannot be done their Service to the Church is to be preferred before that to the State 2. as to bind their Subjects upon External and Temporal Mulcts and Punishments to observe the Laws and Determinations of the Church But First that the Governors of the Church have also power upon Ecclesiastical Censures to assemble a Synod of Clergy when there seems need tho the Prince oppose it this indeed those Doctors affirm And secondly whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Prince's coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of he Church this they bring in question But then as his last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors so it is opposed by others of them 2. We will consider what manner of Supremacy was afterward by little and little either challenged by the Prince or by the Clergy or Parliament given unto him as his right 3. And Thirdly how according to this their conceived right those Three Princes acted CHAP. II. The Inducement of the English Clergy to acknowledge a Regal Supremacy in Spirituals I. Head § 17 FOR the First Henry the Eighth whether because scrupulous in Conscience How the Engl. Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals occasioned by his Daughter Mary's being offered in Marriage first to the Emperor Charles the Fifth and then to Francis King of France and by both refused as is said upon this account because they doubted of the lawfulness of Henry ' s Marriage with her Mother or whether because much enamoured on another Lady Anne Bullen Daughter to the Treasurer of his Houshold and an Attendant on the Queen yet between whom and him it is said that the King was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7 c. never after repealed plainly declared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the Seventh Etiamsi illa tibi alià s secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis aut primo affinitatis gradu etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit do give some suspicion Had a great desire after Twenty years cohabitation to be divorced from Queen Katherine because having been formerly his Brother's Wife Cardinal Wolsey being made the Bishops Legate together with Cardinal Campegius for the hearing and determining this matter tho at first he much corresponded with the King's Inclinations having designed his Matching with the King of France his Sister as is thought from some Self-interests yet when
Synodical or by whatsoever name they shall be called unless the King by his Royal assent command them to make promulge and execute the same See for this the Preface of the Act of Parliament Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth 19. c. where it is said that the Clergy of the Realm of England had not only acknowledged that the Convocation of the same Clergy is always hath been and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ but also submitting themselves to the Kings Majesty had promised in verbo Sacerdotii that they would never from henceforth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever other name they shall be called unless the Kings most Royal assent may to them be had to make promulge and execute the same But they gave up also their power to execute any old Canons of the Church without the Kings consent had first thereto as appears by what follows in the next Section The whole Debate with all the traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared herein saith Dr. Heylin are specified at large in the Records of Convocation 1532 which were well worthy the viewing Now if the First and Second Thesis above-named stand good this Act of the Clergy is utterly unlawful For by this the Prince hath authority to hinder the Clergy from altering or reforming any former setled Doctrine in his Kingdome As King Charles also in his Declaration before the 39 Articles manifesteth that he will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree from the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England any varying i. e by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation In what case then had the Reformation been if former Princes in the same language as King Charles had used this pretended lawful power in prohibiting Bishops c. to attempt enact promulge c any thing contrary to the then here setled Popish Doctrines To advance yet somewhat further In the Preface of the same Act of Parliament the Clergy are also said which thing neither Dr. Heylin Dr. Hammond § 23. nor Dr. Fern have sufficiently weighed in their Relations of the English Reformation to have humbly besought the Kings Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial or Synodal which be thought to be prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of Thirty Two Persons Sixteen of the Temporalty and Sixteen of the Clergy of the Realm to be chosen and appointed by the Kings Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God c shall stand in power Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal not only such as were the sole Constitutions and Canons of the Synods of this Nation which the like Synods may lawfully correct but such as were also the Canons of superior Synods which the Synods of this Nation could not lawfully annul This appears both by the practice of their abrogating and reforming of several Canons that were such nay I think such were all that were reformed and also by the Tenent See below § 28. Statute 25. Hen. 8.21 c. that all the Constitutions made only by mans authority are by the King being supream in his Dominions as he thinks fit mutable To stand with the Laws of God therefore any Canon tho it were not against the Kings Prerogative or Law of the Realm yet if thought by these Judges not to stand with the Laws of God might be annulled Shall be thought by the more part of them Therefore an Act of the Laity in these Spiritual matters if obtaining the consent only of one Clergy-man tho all the rest oppose nay if obtaining the consent of the King tho all the Clergy-Commissioners oppose stands good as being an Act of the major part § 25 In this Act of the Clergy if it be supposed a Synodical request of the whole Clergy and not only of some persons thereof more addicted to the Kings Inclinations and if Canons and Constitutions here be not restrained only to those that seem some way to intrench upon the rights of Civil Power or to some Ecclesiastical external Rites and Ceremonies I see not but that the Clergy here gives away to the King and to the Laity at least if assisted with one or two or indeed without any Clergy their Synodical power to conclude and determine matters of Faith and to order the Government of the Church as they shall think best since all the former Canons and Constitutions Synodal are not about matters of External Rite and Ceremony but some doubtless concerning matters of Faith and such Christian Practices and Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline as are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and necessarily involve Faith of all which Canons the 32 are now made Judges what stands with Gods Law or what is contrary thereto and the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum drawn up partly in Henry the Eighth's partly in Edward the Sixth's time by such Commissioners Reprinted 1640 is found to meddle not only with Canons repugnant to Civil Government or with Rites and Ceremonies but with matters of the Divine Offices and Sacraments Heresies c as appears in the very Titles of that Book Now such Act of the Clergy must needs be most unjust and unlawful if the First or Second or Seventh Thesis above-recited stand good § 26 But whatever sense these words in the Preface of the Act were or may be extended to I do not think that the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine Truth By which authority Princes might as they also did change Religion in this Kingdome at their pleasure but imagined that as they obliged themselves to do nothing without the Kings consent so neither in these matters especially should the King do any thing without theirs as may be gathered First by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supream recited before Secondly by the Declaration of the Bishops against the Pope See Fox p. 971. wherein they alledge against him the Third Canon of the Second General Council Enacting ut controversiae ab Episcopis Provinciarum ubi ortae sunt terminentur that all Causes shall be finished and determined within the Province where the same began and that by the Bishops ef the same Province urged also by Bishop Tonstal in his Answer to Cardinal Poole And Thirdly By several of the said Bishops and particularly by this Tonstal's and Gardiner's of whom Dr. Fern saith that none could have written better against the
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-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
Dr. Heylin p. 23. and altered many things with his own hand as appears by the Book still extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library And in the Answer which he writ himself to the York-shire Rebels offended with the State of Religion he hath this Clause That he marvelled much that ignorant People would go about to take upon them to instruct him who had been noted something Learned what the Faith should be Without which consciousness and esteem of his own Learning and Abilities it is probable he would have been a more dutiful Son of the Church Her p. 417. and never have owned such a Supremacy in stating Theological Controversies with such severe punishments to all that thwarted his Doctrines Whereby he seemed to act the Part tho he assumed not the Title of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to which place his Father is said to have designed him By vertue of the same Supremacy he made Orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Fasts of Holy-days of Election and Consecration of Bishops as you may see in Fox in the King's Injunctions and Proclamations p 960. 999. 1104. and before in § 36. and § 68. § 100 By vertue of such a Supremacy concerning several other Ceremonies as he calls them the King speaketh in this wise Fox p. 1035. in his Injunctions put forth 1539. Commanding that the Holy Bread and Holy Water Procession kneeling and creeping on Good-Fryday to the Cross and Easter-day setting up Lights to the Corpus Christi bearing of Candles on Candlemas-day Purification of Women delivered of Child offering of Chrysomes keeping of the four Offering-days paying their Tithes and such like Ceremonies be observed and kept till it shall please the King to change or abrogate any of them Where note that as Colledges see before § 87. so here Tithes also are conceived to be in the disposal of this Supream Head of the English Church § 101 By vertue of such Supremacy he without any consent of the Clergy 1. by his Vice-gerent Cromwel first ordered That English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church and that the Parson of the Parish say the Injunctions 1536. and 1538. set forth by Cromwel shall discourage no man from the reading or hearing of the said Bible but shall expresly provoke stir and exhort every Person to read the same admonishing them nevertheless to avoid all contention and altercation therein and to use an honest sobriety in the inquisition of the true sense of the same and to refer the explication of the obscure places to men of higher judgment in Scripture Which Publication of the Scriptures in the beginning of his recession from Rome perhaps he was the more inclined to for two things wherein he pleaded much their evidence in his justification The one See Fox p. 1000. That it was unlawful for him to have his Brothers Wife The other That the Pope could not by them claim any Jurisdiction over England He justly therefore relinquishing the one because it was there prohibited and disacknowledging the other because not there commanded Also in this Translation as those words 1. Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 were then and till the end of King Edward's days rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 submit your selves unto the King He was declared the chief Head of the Church of England But these words were changed afterward when Queen Elizabeth had refused such Title into King as having the Preheminence and King as Supreme But upon what ground soever it was that he made the Holy Scriptures common to the Vulgar for a time afterward when by three or four Years experience he had seen that so many Divisions came thereby the unlearned and unstable now as in St. Peter's time z. Pet. 3.16 wresting these holy writings hard in some things to be understood to their own destruction when the People had now ceased to depend on the authoritative Exposition of their Spiritual Superiors especially when they had also seen the King and his Vicar Cromwel Lay-men to judge of the Judgments of the Clergy and to reform their former Erments of the Clergy and to reform their former Errors after this experience I say by Authority of the same Supremacy 2. He commands again the Scriptures to be shut up and withdrawn from them prohibiting upon the Penalty of a Months Imprisonment toties quoties that any Woman Husbandman Artificer Yeoman Serving-man Apprentice or Journy-man Labourer c should read them to themselves or to others privately or openly See Stat. 34 35. Hen. 8. 1. c. Because saith the Preface of that Statute his Highness perceived that a great multitude of his Subjects most especially of the lower sort had so abused the Scriptures that they had thereby grown and increased in divers naughty and erroneous Opinions and by occasion thereof fallen into great divisions and dissensions among themselves And if you shy that the Opinions the King calls here erroneous were the Protestant Doctrines discovered by the vulgar from the new light of the Scriptures First you may see the very Opinions as the Bishops collected them in Fox p. 1136. c unownable by any sober Christian Secondly We who have had sad experience what monstrous opinions the vulgar by wresting those farted Writings have taken up in our days may rationally allaw the same incident to former times Of the same thing I find that King much complaining in his Preface also to Necessary Doctrine in this manner Like as in the time of darkness and ignorance so he calls the ages of the Church preceding his own finding our People seduced from the Truth by Hypocrisy and Superstition we by the help of God and his Word have travelled to purge and cleanse our Realm from the Enormities of the same wherein by opening Gods Truth with publishing of the Scriptures our labours have not been void and frustrate So now we perceive that in the time of knowledge so he calls his own times the Devil hath attempted to return again into the House purged and cleansed accompanied with seven worse Spirit and Hypocrisy and Superstition being excluded we find entered into some of our Peoples hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of Scripture presumption arrogancy carnal liberty and contention we be therefore constrained c. And afterward It must be agreed saith he that for the instruction of those whose Office it is to teach the reading and studying of Holy Scripture is necessary but for the other part ordained to be taught it ought to be deemed certainly that the reading of the Scripture is not so necessary for those Folks that of duty they be bound to read it but as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient so to be tolerated or taken from it Consonant whereunto the politick Law of our Realm hath now restrained it c. Where note that he puts the just power of this toleration or restraint in the States not in the Church-men's Power Sec the like complaint made by him in his
Power within his Dominions may upon any pretence of Religion or other whatsoever either take up himself or licence any others to take up the Civil Sword against the King or make any resistance to him therewith in order to any person or cause whatsoever Which thing sufficiently secures his government and the peace of his Kingdome § 182 2. Again as to the second part of the Oath thus much shall be freely conceded That there is some Supremacy in or dine ad Spiritualia to which no Forreign State or Prelate may lay claim As besides that which is named already to belong only to the Civil Magistrate it shall here be granted as being the opinion of several Catholicks That no General Council hath any authority to make any Ecclesiastical Law which any way entrencheth upon any Civil Right Nor any forreign Prelate hath authority to use a Temporal power over Princes when judged heretical to kill or depose them or absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance Were therefore these words of the Oath understood only of such a Forreign power which opposeth the security of the Queens Civil Government as Dr. Hammond urgeth Schism 7. c. § 17. Or which layeth intolerable burthens and exactions upon the Subjects of the Land i. e. as to temporal matters and which draws after it Positions and Doctrines to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince's Crown and Dignity to the exemption of all Ecclesiastical persons such as makes them but half-Subjects to the deposing of Kings and disposing of their Kingdomes as Dr. Fern urgeth Examin Champ. 9. c. p. 279 it shall be granted here without disputing any such controversy that the Oath for such thing as this could not be justly refused But after these Concessions now to review the two parts of the Oath again §. 183. n. 1. How far not to see what more might lye in them 1. For the First There is a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Civil Magistrate cannot justly claim viz. Such Supremacies as these that a Prince may when a Superior Council abroad or the major part of his Clergy at home hath or doth determine against something which he with some few or a lesser part of his Clergy is perswaded to be consonant to the word of God may I say suppress and forbid the Doctrine of those and establish and promulgate the Doctrine of these may thus make and publish new Ecclesiastical Articles or Canons and correct suspend or dispense with former and that where no just pretence of their violating any way his Civil Government That he without any Synodal consent of his Clergy or He with it against the decrees of Superior Councils may change the publick Church Liturgies her Service or Discipline and that when these no way hurtful to the Civil State That the Clergy may not assemble about Spiritual concernments which none deny that they may do even under Heathen Princes but when he pleaseth to call them may teach or promulgate no Ecclesiastical Decisions in matter of Doctrine or Constitutions in matter of Discipline to their flocks being his Subjects unless he first give his consent unto them tho these concern no civil right That he may introduce into Bishopricks whom he approves without the consent of a major part of the present Episcopacy or may displace any or prohibite the function of their office within his Dominions without any concurrence of the Clergy and where is no just pretence of danger to his Secular Government Briefly to use Bishops Carleton's words cited before That he may use any such Spiritual Jurisdiction § 3 as stands in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offenders Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures All or most of which Supremacies are not Supremacies belonging to the Prince but to the Clergy to Prelates to Councils and Synods Provincial National or higher As hath been laid down in the first and second These See before sect 2.4 and as will appear to any one at the first sight if he will but empty his fancy a little of the prime Patriarch of the Catholick Church his being Anti-Christ and of an erroneous and Superstitious Hierarchy and on the other side of an orthodox and godly Jesias-Prince and seriously consider what a mischief it will bring upon a National Church when the supreme Secular Magistrate thereof is an Heretick or Schismatick and invested with the above-named Supremacies in Spiritual Affairs Nay I may further add to these that there is some Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs which the Protestants themselves or the most Learned of them do not allow to the Prince as this That the Prince alone without the consent of some of his Clergy may make or impose upon his Subjects Ecclesiastical Laws or decide such Controversies And secondly there is another Supremacy which all the Presbyterian Protestants do not allow to the Prince namely that he may prohibite the Church Ministery and Officers from making or imposing any Ecclesiastical Law without his licence and consent first obtained thereto as you may see below § 211. Meanwhile how both these do safely take this Oath there being neither of these limitations by the Oath-imposer mentioned either in it or elsewhere with reference to it nay the contrary being declared concerning the later of these two Supremacies I see not unless the Oath-taker may qualify his Oath according to his own sense To require therefore submission by Oath to such Supremacies of the Civil Magistrate as these now named is not lawful § 184 And that such submission was required from these Bishops is evident I think That submission to the Royal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops 1. Both from that Supremacy which the Queen at that very time in these very things exercised without any Synodal consent against former Synods a Specimen of which you may see below § 201. in Her Majesties Commission to the Uncanonical Ordainers of Arch-bishop Parker and to the same purpose in Stat. 8. Eliz. 1. and which the Kings Henry and Edward had formerly exercised 2. And from that Supremacy which the Parliaments granted and acknowledged due in these things to the Prince as hath been shewed I think sufficiently in this former discourse they granting to the King all that authority and jurisdiction which any Spiritual person or persons had formerly excepting only the authority of ministery of divine offices in the Church See before § 71. All which authority formerly thus granted by the laws and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm the taker of this Oath is bound to assist and defend The like to which see also in the 1. and 2. Canon Ecclesiast 1603. Altho the former Clergy under Henry the Eighth had never annexed these Supremacies to the Crown See before § 25 or if they had had again under Queen Mary reversed it Neither is it enough for our men for the setling of
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
appoint a certain place and bounds for the exercise of his Jurisdiction no Bishop by the Church-Canon can be made without the consent of his Superior the Metropolitan nor Metropolitan without the consent of the Patriarch See Chur. Gov. 1. par 9. §. who is to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans under his Patriarch-ship either by imposition of hands himself or by appointing his Ordainers at which time his Bull for authorizing the Ordainers was used to be read and by Mission of the Pall See Conc. Nic. 4. c. Can. Apost 34. Council Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Act. 8. General Council 10. c. confessed by Protestants by Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. and 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitan's subject unto them might be ordained What they bring proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of Confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarch-ship By Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 9. c. p. 297. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans c. Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall c. And indeed what defence can the Church have from frequent Schisme if two or three or a few Bishops dissenting from the whole may not only make other persons of the like inclinations Bishops to govern the people with them but also may make new Metropolitans to preside over themselves But Arch-Bishop Parker was thus ordained by two Bishops of the same Province without and against the consent of the Patriarch and of the Arch-Bishops Vice-gerent side vacante the Bishop of London and of the other Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of York Neither did he receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior but meerly that which the Queen a Lay-person by these men her Delegates in this imployment did undertake according to the warrant of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. contrary to the First and Third Thesis above to confer upon him Which Delegates of her's were none of them at that time possessed of any Diocess Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chicester and Hereford and Coverdale never admitted or elected to any and Hoskins a Suffragan nor had they had Diocesses could have had any larger jurisdiction save only within these at least being single Bishops could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction which yet they conferred on Parker not on their own surely but on the Queens score And then might not she at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction which he held only on her gift See above the First and Third Thes 4. Of their four Bishops that undertook to ordain Parker three Barlow Coverdale and Scory were upon several accounts justly before deprived or their Bishopricks and as for the fourth Hoskins the Suffragan See before §. 58.189.190 these had their office formerly taken away and never after restored Neither their authority standing good See before §. 190. is one or two Bishops a competent number for Ordination 5. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops as it was made in Edward the Sixth's time so it was revoked by Synod in Queen Mary's days and by no Synod afterward restored before their Ordination Revoked also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days and not by any Act restored 1. Mar. 2. c. till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops viz. in 8. Eliz. 1. Upon Bonner's urging hereupon that the Queens were no legal Bishops § 194 And for such considerations as these it seems it was that the Queen in her Mandate to Coverdale Scory Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination c. for the Ordination of her new Arch-Bishop Parker c. was glad out of her Spiritual Supremacy and Universal jurisdiction which the Parliament had either given or recognized to belong to her and had enacted also That Her Majesty might assign name and authorize any person being natural born Subjects to her Highness to exercise all manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining See 1. Eliz. 1. to dispense and give them leave to dispense to themselves with all former Church-laws which should be transgrest in the electing consecrating and investing of this Bishop The words in her Letters Patents to them are these Mandantes quatenus vos eundem in Archiepiscopum pastorem ecclesiae praedictae confirmare consecrare c. velitis Supplentes nihilominus Supremâ authoritate nostrâ regiâ si quid in vobis aut vestrum aliquo conditione statu aut facultate vestris ad praemissa perficienda desit eorum quae per leges ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt temporis ratione rerum necessitate id postulante Which Dispensation some would restrain only to these Ordainers their using of the new Ordinal before it was licensed again by a new Parliament after the repeal thereof by Parliament in Queen Mary's day Bish Bram. Consecrat of Protestant Bishop◠4. c. P. 94. But this was a scruple started afterward by Bishop Bonner and not now dreamt on Nor did the new Ordinal want sufficient Lay-licence having the Queens nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it for which see ibid. Bishop Bramh. p. 96 nor are those words in the Dispensation Si quid in vobis conditione statu c rerum necessitate id postulante applicable to it And these are the words in the Instrument of Arch-Bishop Parker's Confirmation Nos c praedictam electionem Matthaei Parker in Archiepiscopum c Supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis in hac parte commissâ confirmamus Supplentes ex supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis delegatâ quicquid in nobis aut aliquo nostrum c. And notwithstanding this regal Dispensation yet afterward Divers questions to give you it in the words of the Statute 8. Eliz. 1. c. by overmuch boldness of speech and talk amongst many common sort of people being unlearned growing upon the making and consecrating of Arch-Bishops and Bishops within this Realm whether the same were and be duly and orderly done according to the Law or not give me leave here to suppose that these scrupulous people meant according to the Ecclesiastical Law for what doth the observing of the Civil Law concern them in the ordaining of their Spiritual Governors which is much tending to the slander of all the State of the Clergy being one of the greatest States of this Realm It is answered to them in the same Statute thus That the Queens Majesty in her Letters Patents c had not only used such words as were accustomed to be used by King Henry and Edward but also had put in those Letters divers
he saith Authoritate Rex propriâ resecare potest superstitiones quas sacerdotes ipsi tolerant but he saith not quas sacerdotes ipsi docent nen esse superstitiones Again p. 364. he speaks thus of a thing done In Israele praecipuae in re religionis partes penes Regem extiterunt vel uno hoc argumento quod per sacrae historiae seriem totam mutato novi regis animo mutata semper est facies religionis Nec Pontifices unquam vel praestare poterant ut fieret mutatio in melius vel ne fieret in pejus impedire And p. 368. Passim per fastos sacros quod in religione fit a rege fieri diserte dicitur Regis factum esse Pontificis haud unquam nisi ex Regis mandato But I hope he will not hence infer that summa religionis is not penes Pontifices if the Prince apostatizeth from the true Religion or that the Church Governors may do nothing contra Regis mandatum nor may oppose him and teach the people contrary to his Reformations where they judge that he reformeth not aright what did the Church-Governors for the first 300 years Especially since p. 377. which I desire you much to mark he alloweth such Ecclesiastical Primacy as the good Kings of Israel used not to all but only to Christian Princes and to Christian Princes not all but only those not heretical and I suppose he would say also not schismatical for if the Prince were heretical or schismatical he well saw the mischief of such a power so he saith there Interim autem sit vel infidelis Princeps sit vel haereticus Oretur pro eo non minus quam pro Nebuchadonozar nemo vitae ejus insidietur non magis quam Ahasueri Fidem penes semet habeant Christiani subditi coram Deo caeteris in rebus pietatem colant Non ergo id agitur ut ecclesiae persecutores ecclesiae gubernatores habeantur c. And something toward this saith Mr. Mason de Minist 3. l. 5. c. if I rightly understand him Regibus qui vel non sunt christiani vel si christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen sancti primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid i. e. quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii none such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship unless the Author seek for some refuge in the Epithets rectus plenus illustris And the same saith Bishop Bicson When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of infidelity and heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which question he answers The Metropolitan Now if no Prince heretical tho Christian hath any Primacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs before we yield such Primacy to a Prince we must know whether he be not heretical and who can so rightly judge of this as the Church or Clergy And then will not the Church and is it not right to judge him such when he opposeth her present or former definitions in matters of Faith See Church Govern 3. Part § 42. And what just Supremacy then for matter of Doctrine is left here to the Prince but an authorizing by his coactive power the Church's decrees Which Regal Supremacy all sides allow But as I said this is contrary to what Bishop Andrews saith elsewhere that the Princes Supremacy may oppose the Clergy when they do i. e. when he thinks they do recedere de viâ non docere juxta legem Dei c. § 203 The fourth Author I shall produce is Mr. Thorndike who writing very rationally and resolutely in vindication of the Church's authority Of Mr. Thorndike as using his Pen against modern Sectarists yet takes care also to save the Phaenomena of the Reformation He therefore in his Right of the Church 5. c. p. 248. after he had with much freedome shewed That the Succession of the Clergy in such a Government as that the visible Communion of the whole Church might be perpetually kept in unity See before §. 188. was a Law ordained by the Apostles and That the Reformation made in England had plainly violated this Law in that the new Bishops that were introduced were made without and against the consent of the former some of his words are cited before § 200. taketh this course to solve this difficulty and to preserve the English Reformation notwithstanding this from being unlawful or schismatical To come then saith he to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continual Succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity of the Church c. But withal it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works c. which proceeding from the same if not a greater power than the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same religion and conscience as the succession of the Church Again I have shewed indeed that the secular power is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical in their determining all things which are not otherwise determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the power of the Church is trusted shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Here Mr. Thorndike holds that the Secular power may restore any law which Christ or his Apostles have ordained not only against a major part but all the Clergy and Governors of the Church and may for a penalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho they also be established by another Law Apostolical Which was the thing I undertook to shew you § 204 But to say something to this discourse of his What reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and the succession of the Clergy doth oppose Which Clergy sure will never confess such to be a law of our Lord but always will
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
by the Patriarchs Thus much concerning the English Reformations under the three Princes Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth what manner of Ecclesiastical Supremacy was conceded to or recognized in them what exercised by them Where it is evident that tho these Princes pretended only to translate upon themselves the Supremacy formerly used by the Patriarch not forgetting to seize on most of the profits thereof yet theirs was far from being restrained within the same bounds as the Patriarch's was For whether we review the pretended innovations introduced into the Church Catholick before or those introduced since the Council of Trent by the Patriarch's concurrence We cannot say of them that He without out or assisted only with some few of the Clergy imposed them upon the world by his single authority without or contrary to the votes of the major part of the Clergy as King Edward and Queen Elizabeth did Who had they called a Synod of their Clergy and then behaved themselves in it as Constantine in the Council of Nice i. e. left all in pure Spiritual matters to their disposal judge what would have been the issue But it seems by the proceedings forementioned in this Discourse that the Secular Supremacy took it to be the Prince's right to establish in their dominions with or without the major part of the Clergy which they were instructed might fall away from the truth a tenent the Patriarch owns not what they apprehended to be the Law of Christ upon evidence of Scripture i. e. to them so seeming by whomsoever manifested unto them From which apprehensions in single and unstudied persons very mutable and having no such fixedness as the body of the Church hath being tyed by so many subordinations to several degrees of Superiors newer and newer Reformations for ever do flow and multiply without end as we see at this day And so it is also that these Acts of Supremacy coming from the hands of the Temporal power whatever way they incline have much more strength and validity in case of opposition than those coming from the Spiritual this Sword not wounding to sense so deep as the other and therefore is such a Supremacy where Prince's judgments are liable to mistakes much the more dangerous § 215 All which ill-consequences the Protestant Princes of Germany who Several Protestants denying such a Supremacy du◠to Princes being in some respects subordinate to another could not so well settle this Supremacy on themselves in the dawning of the Reformation did well foresee and were as loth to acknowledge the Emperor Supreme as the Pope Nor would they ever allow of this Title assumed by Henry the Eighth out of a jealousy that Charles the Fifth should claim the same And for this reason it is thought that no Accord was made tho much attempted between them and this King See Lord Herbert's Hist p 378 and 448. The Protestants of Germany saith he would not allow the King's Supremacy lest they should infer an investing of the same authority in the Emperor whose absolute power they seemed to fear more than that of the Pope himself And this suspicion alienated secretly the mind of our King who saw that if he embraced their Reformation they would abridge his power i. e. regulate or alter the point of his Supremacy § 216 The same reluctance against such Regal Supremacy was in Calvin and other Reformers as I have shewed before See before §. 37. and hath remained still in the reformed Presbyterian Clergy of Scotland and in those Sects called Puritanical in England and elsewhere which is said to have rendred both Queen Elizabeth and King James much more averse from the Presbyterian Government and Discipline who discharging the authority of the Pope of Councils such as the Church hath had of Bishops yet have endeavoured to reserve the Supremacy as touching all Ecclesiastical Affairs to the Officers of their particular Churches as the power of calling and constituting their Assemblies at time and place as they think fit the making of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies the correcting and ordering all things pertaining to the Congregation tho without the Kings consent and against his will unless he be pleased to be included in the number of the Church Officers there to enjoy a single vote requiring the Civil Magistrate to be subject to this their power To which purpose are those Positions of theirs Seatch Discipline 2. l. 1. c. As the Ministers and others of the Ecclesiastical State are subject to the judgment and punishment of the Magistrate in external things if they offend so ought the Magistrates to be subject to the Kirk Spiritually and in Ecclesiastical Government And to submit themselves to the Discipline of the Kirk if they transgress in matter of Conscience and Religion All men as well Magistrates as Inferiors ought to be subject to the judgment of the National Assemblies of this Country in Ecclesiastical causes Scot. Disc 2. l. 12. c. without any re or appellation to any Judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm See Dr. Heylin's Reform Just p. 88 and Rogers on Art 37. p. 216. and 218. and the two Books of the Scottish Discipline To which may be added those passages of the English Presbyterian in their Confession of Faith An. Dom. 1647. cap. 30 and 31. which say That the Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church hath therein appointed a Government in the hand of Church-officers distinct from the Civil Magistrate And that if the Magistrates be open enemies to the Church the Ministers of Christ of themselves by vertue of their office may meet together in such Assemblies And there may Ministesrially determine Controversies of Faith set down rules for the better ordering of the publick worship of God and Government of his Church receive complaints and authoritatively determine the same Which decrees and determinations if consonant to the word are to be received and therefore may be divulged with reverence and submission for the power whereby they are made as this power being an Ordinance of God All this they affirm the Church-officers may do of themselves by vertue of their office if the Magistrate be an open enemy to the Church And all this they did King Charles's Supremacy giving no consent thereto but opposing it And then for the meaning of open enemy I have reason to suppose they will pronounce a Popish an Arrian any heretical Prince such as well tho perhaps not every way so much as an Heathen § 217 Lastly The same reluctance also was in those Bishops who first conceded such Supremacy to Henry the Eighth Who as at the fiest they swallowed the Oath of it not without some straining so afterward when by long experience they had seen such church-Church-laws issuing from it as they thought very grievous and dammageable to the Church and found uncontrollable by their power they very stoutly to the loss of their Bishopricks made resistance to the same Oath
of Catholic Unity but instead of these we are told of a Western Patriarch one who pleads the Prescription of some Years for his Autority and thinks himself hardly dealt with pag. 214. that because He claims more then his due that which is his due should be denyed him Hence it seems to be that He is so wary in giving us his own Opinions that He disputes so much and affirms so little that he bounds all his Positions with so many limitations that they seem contriv'd on purpose for subterfuges and that He very cautiously ventures not any farther then He thinks tho' falsly the Autority of our Writers will bear him out Hence those Concessions which will perhaps by that Party be judg'd over-liberall § 117 That Images and so the veneration or worship of them were very seldom if at all us'd in the Primitive Church That the publick Communion was then most commonly if not allways administred in both kinds unto the People That the Divine Service which then as now was celebrated usually in the Latin or Greek Tongue was much better in those days then now understood of the Common people That the having the Liturgy or Divine Service or the Holy Scriptures in a known tongue is not prohibited nor the using of Images enjoyn'd nor the Priest's administring and the people's receiving the Communion in both kinds if the Supreme Church-Governours so think fit and we say they ill discharge the Office of Church-Governours who do not think fit our Saviours Institution should be observ'd declar'd unlawful by any Canon of any Council Ancient Council he means for latter Councils have declar'd these unlawful These are large grants from a Romanist and which give a great shock to their so much magnified pretence of Universal Tradition Had this Author liv'd in those Ages when the Secular Prince countenanc'd the beginnings of Reformation He would have scarce lost any thing for his too rigorous adhaesion to the C. of Rome For he thinks it probable that had the Reformation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known tongue § 118 administred Communion in both kinds thought fit not to use Images changed something of practise only without any decession from the Churches Doctrines the Church-Governours would have been facile to license these Where by the way it seems something unintelligible how they should change practice without decession from Doctrines if Doctrines enjoyn'd such Practices pag. 2. §. 2. and if according to him Errours in practice allways presuppose some Errour in matter of Faith But at least we may expect He would have outwardly complied since he notes That some outward compliance at the first pag. 140. §. 123. of those Bishops who made an open Opposition afterward might be upon a fair Pretence because the first Acts of the Reformation might not be so insupportable as the latter Where it is worth our Observing that the very first Act which gave life to the Reformation was shaking off all manner of Obedience to the See of Rome then which I believe his Holiness contrary to this Author's Sentiments thinks no Act more unsupportable These things consider'd We could not have had a more easie Adversary then this Gentleman and the Church has less reason to fear his open Opposition then had he still continued in her bosom For it seems not to be his Province to publish what is Material against us but to publish Much. But God be thanked our Religion is not establish'd upon so weak a basis as to be overthrown by a few Theses unprov'd and falsly applied Nor is it any wonder if that arguer doth not convince who uses for Principles Conclusions drawn from Praemisses which the world never saw and then assumes such things as every one acquainted with History is able to contradict Certainly his University-Readers will not be very fond of the Conclusion of that Syllogism whose Major is a petitio principii Minor a down-right fals-hood in matter of fact They no doubt are surpriz'd to find Consequents come before their Antecedents and Church-Government part the 5th to have stept into the World somewhat immaturely methinks before the other four But the Lawfulness of the English Reformation was to be examin'd and it would have took up too much time to shew why he impos'd upon us such a Test It might therefore be thought seasonable enough to examin the Truth of his Theses when he shall be pleas'd to communicate to us whence they are inferr'd In the meanwhile it may not be unuseful to consider what disservice he had done to our Cause had his success aequal'd the boldness of his attempt After all his Theses and their Applications his Correspondent Alpha's and Beta's his perplex'd Paragraphs his intricate Paratheses and his taedious Citations what Doctrine of the Church of Rome has he establish'd or what principle of Ours has he disprov'd Should we grant that the Clergy only have power in Controversies of Religion that the Secular Prince has no Autority to reform Errours in the Church that our Princes did wrongfully usurp such an Autority and that our Reformation was not the act of the Clergy will it hence follow which yet is to be prov'd by this Author e're he can perswade us to entertain any favourable Opinion of Popery That the second Commandment ought to be expung'd out of the Decalogue that Idolatry is no Sin or worshipping of Images no Idolatry that Transubstantiation is to be believ'd in despight of Sense Reason Scripture and Antiquity the Service of God to be administred in an unknown tongue as it were in mere contradiction to Saint Paul and the Communion to be celebrated in one kind notwithstanding our Saviours Drink ye all of this It is indeed our happiness that the Reformation was carried on by the joynt concurrence of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power that We are united together by common Rules for Government and Worship agree'd on by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation and made Laws to us by the Autority of the Sovereign We are allways ready to prove that the Church of England being a National Church and not Subject to any forreign Jurisdiction ow'd no Obedience to the Bishop or Church of Rome therefore might without their leave reform her self and that accordingly our Religion is establish'd by such Laws as want no autority either Civil or Ecclesiastical which they ought to have This is a Plea which we shall be allways prepar'd to justifie and a Blessing for which we thank God and for the continuance of which we shall never cease to pray But now had those which we esteem corruptions of the Roman Church never been cast out or were they reestablish'd which God in his mercy forbid by as good autority as that by which they are now abolish'd Yet even then we could not submit to such Determinations and being concluded by an antecedent Obligation to God durst not obey even lawful autority commanding unlawful things He
therefore that would gain a Proselyte who acts upon prudent and Conscientious principles in vain entertains him with Schemes of Church-Government since the things contested are such as no Government in the world can make lawful It would be more rational to shew were not that an attempt long since despair'd of that the particular doctrines and practises to which we are invited are agreeable to the word of God or that it doth not concern us whether they be or not For if either it may be prov'd that the Errours of the Church of Rome were so great that there was a necessity of reforming them that every National Church has a right to reform her self that this right of the Church of England in particular was unquestionable that she us'd no other then this her lawful right and that accordingly the Reformation was effected by the Major part of the then legal Church-Governours Or if in failure of this which yet we say is far from being our case it may be prov'd that where evident Necessity requires and the prevailing Errours are manifest there the Civil power may lawfully reform Religion without the concurrence of the major part of the Clergy for Secular Interests averse from Reformation Or if lastly supposing no such Reformation made by lawful authority but the Laws which enjoyn such erroneous Doctrines remaining in their full force and vigour every private Christian can plead an Exemption from his Obedience to them by proving them evidently contradictory to the known laws of God if any one of these Pleas are valid all which have by our Writers been prov'd to be so beyond the possibility of a fair Reply then Nothing which is aim'd at in these Papers can affect us and tho' the author would have shew'd more skin in proving his Question yet he had still betray'd his want of prudence in the choice of it By what hath been sayd the Reader will be induc'd to think that these Papers do not so much concern the Church of England as the State and that a Reply to them is not so properly the task of a Divine as of a Lawyer The Civil power is indeed manifestly struck at and an Answer might easily be fetcht from Keble and Coke He may perswade himself that he acts craftily but certainly he acts very inconsistently who erects a Triumphal Statue to his Prince and at the same time undermines his Autority in monumental Inscriptions gives him the glorious and astonishing Title of Optimus Maximus and yet sets up a superiour Power to his If neither Loyalty nor gratitude could perswade him to speak more reverently yet out of wariness he ought to have been more cautious in laying down such things as seem to have an ill aspect on his Majesties proceedings For it may seem very rash to deny §. 5. p. 12. that the Prince can remove from the Exercise of his Office any of his Clergy for not obeying his Decisions in matters of a Spiritual Nature when a Reverend Prelate suffers under such a Sentence §. 7. p. 14. to assert that the Prince ought not to collate to Benefices where the Clergy have Canonical exceptions against the Person nominated whilst a Friend of his thus qualified enjoys the benefit of such a Collation to find fault with the Reformers that they gave their Prince leave to dispense with Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical §. 28. p. 36. when he himself is in that case most graciously dispens'd with How far the Regal power extends it self in these cases especially as it may be limited by the municipal laws of the Realm I am not so bold as to determine but where such Rights are claim'd by the Sovereign and actually exercis'd there it becomes not the modesty of a private Subject to be so open and liberal in condemning them But then above all he renders his Loyalty justly questionable when he tells us it is disputed by the Roman Doctors and leaves it a Question Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church §. 16. p. 20. then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Princes coactive Power or to authorise others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the Church Now I appeal to the judicious Reader whether the substance of that infamous Libel which was part of a late * See Sidney's Trial. Traytour's Indictment and which was written by way of Polemical Discourse as he pleaded might not if manag'd by this Author's pen have been thus warily exprest Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Civil matters against Acts of Parliament then the Parliament hath not also virtually some temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Princes coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the State Such bold Problems as these ought not to be left undecided and one who had any zeal for his Prince would scarce let the Affirmative side of the Quaestion pass without affixing a brand on it These Expressions among others He might well be conscious would be offensive to any SIR of known Fidelity and Loyalty to his Prince and therefore such person 's good Opinion was to be courted in an Epistle Apologetick But certainly it was expected that the kind Sir should read no farther then the Epistle for if he did he would find himself miserably impos'd upon The Author in this Epistle praeacquaints him with these things 1. That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only in things which are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 2. That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed states do forego to Exercise 3. Nor of any but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth Now I shall humbly beg leave to undeceive the unknown Sir and to represent to him that in all these he is misinform'd As to the first 1. That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only such as are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Now if by dubious he means such things as He does not doubt but they are Spiritual then this doth not reach our case because We may doubt whether some things are not Temporal which He doubts not but they are Spiritual But if by dubious He means such things as are doubted by no body but that they are purely Spiritual then are we agreed since neither do We allow the Temporal Prince any
Spiritual Persons for Moral and Civil Misdemeanors damageable to the Common-Wealth But this Limitation is forgot when from this Thesis He would prove the ejection of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time unlawful For their Deprivation was for refusing the Oath of Supremacy made first by Roman-Catholicks in King Henry the 8th's time and reviv'd by Queen Elizabeth so that the Justice of it depends merely on the Right of the Civil power to make Oaths for the better security of their Government and to impose such Penalties as are exprest in the Law on the Violators and if such Refusal be damageable to the Common-Wealth as it was then judg'd then the Deprivation of those Refusers will be justifiable according to his own Principles Thus again in his 8th Thesis When he has laid down That as for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution §. 14. p. 18. Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any New Canons contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former Superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them He restrains it to those only as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his Civil Government nor the National Synod can shew more prejudicial to their particular Church then the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches Where by the way methinks it should suffice if they were aequally prejudicial for one Church is never the less wrong'd because another suffers Now we desire no more then the benefit of this limitation for if the Prince may reverse such Constitutions when prejudicial to Civil Government and the National Synod when praejudicial to their particular Church and each of These are Judges of such praejudice for neither doth Aequity admit nor doth He appoint any other Arbiter then each of these have as much power granted them as they challenge which is only to alter such Constitutions as are prejudicial to them Having praemis'd thus much in general and caution'd the Reader against this piece of Sophistry which runs through the greatest part of this Discourse I shall now proceed to a particular survey of his Theses As for the first and second I shall at present grant him that favour which he seems to request of all his Readers i.e. suppose them to be true and shall content my self only to examin what Inferences he deduces from them And here I cannot but commend his Policy for setting his Conclusions at so great a distance from his Praemisses for they are commonly such as would have by no means agreed to stand too nigh together From his first and second Thesis that the Clergy have power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion and to judge what is divine truth what are Errors that they cannot alienate this Power to the Secular Prince §. 22. p. 29. he infers That that Synodical Act of the Clergy in K. Henry the Eighth's time whereby they promise not to Assemble without the King 's Writ nor when Assembled to execute any Canons without the King's consent is unlawful Now it is to be observed that the Clergy neither do deny that they have a Power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion which is what the first Thesis would prove nor do they transfer such a Power on the King which might be against the Tenor of the second The utmost which can be deduc'd hence is That the Clergy did for prudential motives limit themselves in the Exercise of one branch of their Spiritual Power and it will be difficult for this Author to prove that He who has a power jure divino may not by humane Laws be limited in the Use of it Husbands have a power over their Wives Fathers over their Children and Masters over their Servants by the Law of God and yet this power may be regulated by the Laws of the Land §. 27. p. 36. Thus the Priest has a power to bind and loose from our Saviour's Commission and yet according to this Author before the Reformation the Inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the Commands of their lawful Spiritual Superior Thus also if a General Council have power to determine matters of Faith then according to his Principles they have power to convene in order to such Determination and this power of theirs is unalienable and yet the Romanists will not allow that such Conventions may be made at pleasure but that the hic nunc are determinable by the Pope who only has power to indict Councils and to give Autority to those decrees which yet derive their power from the Council's being infallible and from the Holy Ghost assisting them Another Act which from the same Thesis he accuses of Injustice is the Clergy's beseeching the King's Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal §. 25. p. 31. which be thought prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgment of his Highness and of 32 Persons 16 of the Temporally and 16 of the Clergy of this Realm to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annull'd shall be made of no value and such other of the Canons as shall be approv'd to stand with the Law of God c. shall stand in power Now it is to be consider'd that the Laws which the Clergy here desire may be revis'd are of a far different Nature and therefore the Inspection of them may well be committed to different Judges Some of them were suppos'd prejudicial to the King's Praerogative Royal or repugnant to the Laws of the Realm and here the Lay-Commissioners being persons of the upper and lower House of Parliament see the Stat. were the best Judges Of others it was to be enquir'd Whether they were agreeable to the word of God or not and here the Clergy were ready to give their Determination And altho' they both acted in a joynt Commission yet no good reason seems assignable why both Lay and Ecclesiastical Judges should be appointed but that the matters to be examin'd being of different cognizance those which related to Civil Affairs should be determin'd by the Temporalty those which were of a Spiritual Nature by the Spiritualty And if so then the deciding of these matters is not transfer'd from the Spiritualty to the Temporalty but from one part of the Clergy to another And this He himself after all his descants upon this Act confesseth For whatever sense the words in the Praeface of this Act were or may be extended to §. 26.10 I do not think the Clergy at first intended any such thing as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine truth and for this Opinion of his He gives us his Reasons in that and the subsequent pages Another
and appointment But it is to be remembred that the Ecclesiastical Censures asserted to belong to the Clergie in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world but the censures here spoken of are such as have reference to the things of this world The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows we confess from their Ordination but the Actual exercise thereof in publick Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Autority for receiving of Appeals pag. 99. and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular but also from all the Clergy in general not making the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or Convocation but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8.19 c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch or Spiritual Controversies but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion of deciding what is Gods word and divine Truth What are Errors in the faith or in the practise of Gods Worship and Service nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis Or if any such Quaestions should be involv'd in the Causes to be tried Why may not the Commissioners if Secular judge according to what has been praedetermin'd by the Clergy or let us suppose a case never yet determin'd How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transfer'd on secular Persons since if Occasion requir'd the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical But not only the Acts of State and Church but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examin'd by his Test and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin * Heylins Ref. Justified part 1. §. 6. p 240. that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the stamp of Royal Autority be imprinted on them Now it is plain to any one that views the Context that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual as hath influence on their Civil rights For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the Kings consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Autority But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent who only has the power of inflicting them Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis had he at so great a distance remembred it which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures which have reference to things not of this but the next World These are the Inferences which I find deduc'd from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse which had they been as conclusive as they are false yet I do not find but that his own party if that be the Roman Catholick had suffer'd most by them For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right what shall we think of that Roman Catholick Clergy who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had receiv'd from Christ what shall we think of those Pastours who so unfaithfully manag'd the Depositum of their Saviour If denying the Popes Authority was so piacular a Crime what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries who professing a more then ordinary Sanctity and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so * Burn Ref. l. 3. p. 182. resolutely abjur'd it What of those Learned in the * Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae zelo religione conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimos Interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi à Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259. Vniversity who after a solemn debate and serious disquisition of the cause so peremptorily defin'd against it What of the * Ref. l. 2. p. 142. Whole Body of the Clergy whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies Pag. 2. and to judge what is Gods Word and divine Truth § 2 what are Errors who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it What of the leading part of those Prelates Ibid. p. 137. Gardiner Bonner and Tonstal who Wrote Preach'd and Fram'd Oaths against it What of the Ibid. p. 144. Nobles and Commons Persons of presum'd Integrity and Honour who prepared the Bill against it What lastly of the Sovereign a declar'd Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine and Defender of the Roman Catholick Faith who past that Bill into a Law and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments If all these acted sincerely then it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed but of the Romanists which is written against If not we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Professors then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that which if it be any part is a main Article of their Faith But to return to our Author What shall we judge of his skill in Controversie who from Principles assum'd gratis draws Deductions which by no means follow and which if they did follow would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronize But because he has offer'd something under this first Thesis why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy I come now to consider it He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of
the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and Scholar of the Church and he earnestly claims a Supreme power and confesseth an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual Matters to bind them upon Temporal Punishments to Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's Determinations and Decrees But here he either willingly misrepresents or ignorantly mistakes our Principles For the Prince claims a supreme power over all persons to bind them by temporal Punishments to the Obedience not of the Churches but of Christs Laws or of the former no farther then they are agreeable with the latter But saith He if the Prince meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees Orthodox and right this power is in effect claim'd to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees whilst he praetends an Obligation both of himself and His Subjects to the Churches But what if the Prince judge such Decrees neither Orthodox nor right Must he here give them the Autority of Civil Sanctions This is to establish Iniquity by a Law and a power is claim'd in effect to bind all persons to the Decrees of the Clergy whilst as has been said He praetends an Obligation of Himself Subjects to the Laws of Christ But he goes on and tells us That all Texts of the New-Testament do ordain Obedience of Church-men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned no less then to others From which I suppose he would infer an exemption from Obeying the Prince in Spiritualibus But supposing that all Texts do aequally ordain Obedience to Princes Pagan and Christian yet the Obedience to a Christian Prince will be of greater latitude since because he professes the true Religion his Commands in Spirituals not contradicting our Saviours will exact our Compliance Obedience in licitis is all the Subject ow's to a Prince either Christian on Infidel but the Christian Prince will oftner challenge my Obedience because he more rarely transgresseth the bounds of licita If as he adds all Princes are oblig'd with the Sword which God hath given them to protect and defend his true Religion and Service in their Dominions whensoever it offers it self to them Since many Religions offer themselves it becomes the Prince to take Care which is the true and not to take whatever is offer'd which would be utterly destructive of our Authors Principles As for the Acts of Ancient Councils obliging even without the Emperours consent We own their Obligation over their proper Subjects so far as they were agreeable with the Laws of Christ and his Apostles and urge the Autority of Emperours no farther then as adding their Civil power to the Spiritual Power of the Church And here we challenge no other Power to our Princes then was exercis'd by Christian Emperours that is to call Synods and to have a liberty of confirming or not confirming their Decrees by Civil Sanctions As for what he cites out of our Writers all amounts to no more then this that there are some Offices peculiar to the Church Which neither do we deny nor did our Princes ever invade these Functions But because from hence He would insinuate that the Prince has no power at all in Causes Ecclesiastical c in his Citations from these Writers comes up to that Character which the * Book of Educ Ox. 1677 p 86. Book of Education gives us of the SLY the CLOSE and the RESERV'D who take notice of so much at serves to their own designs and misinterpret and detort what You say even contrary to Your intention I shall as briefly as may be shew that their Concessions are far from giving any Countenance to his Cause Bishop Andrews doth indeed say as all other of our Church Potestatis mere Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae Conciones i. e. dubia legis explicandi munus claves Sacramenta omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur But then there are other Ecclesiastical powers which he challenges to the Prince viz. a In iis quae Exterioris politiae sunt ut praecipiat suo sibi jure vindicat Tort. p. 380. To have Supreme Command in the exteriour Polity of the Church b Custos est non modo secunadae Tabulae sed primae p. 381. To be keeper of both Tables c Quodcunque in rebus Religionis Reges Israel fecerunt id ut Ei faciendi jus sit ac potestas Ib. To exercise all that Power which the good Kings of Israel did d Leges Autoritate Regia ferendi ne blasphemetur Deus ut jejunio placetur Deus ut festo honoretur Ib. To make Ecclesiastical Laws To e Delegandi qui de lege sic lata judicent Ib. delegate Persons to judge in causes Ecclesiastical To f Siqui in Leges ita latas committant etsi Religionis causa sit in eos Autoritate Regia animadvertendi Ib. punish the breach of those Spiritual Laws To g Non ut totus ab lieno ore pendeat ipse à se nihil dijudicer Ib. learn the will of God not only from the Mouth of the Clergy but also from the Scripture To h Omnibus omnium ordinum jus dicendi Ib. have autority over all Persons To i Abiathar ipsum si ita meruit Pontificatu abdicandi 382. eject even the High Priest if he deserve it To k Excelsa diruendi i. e. peregrinum cultum abolendi Ib. pull down High-places l Sive in Idololatriam abeat Vitulus aureus sive in Superstitionem Serpens aeneus utrumque comminuendi Ib. and to Reform the Church from Idolatry and Superstition These He claims to appertain to the Prince m Haec Primatus a pud nos jura sunt ex jure divino Ib. Jure Divino The next Author is Dr. Carlion He amongst other rights of the Church reckons Institution and Collation of Benefices which this Writer marks with Italian Characters and makes much Use of But this Apostolical Institution and Collation by the Bishop alluded to doth also involve in it Ordination even as the Ordination which is observ'd by himself n Pag. 13. from the Bishop signified also Institution in the charge and cure But the Collation challeng'd by our Princes is of another Nature and signifies no more then the Nominating a Person to be Ordain'd to such an Office or presenting a Person already Ordained to such a Benefice And the right of Investitures which is the same with such a Collation is by this Bishop o Jurisd â—eg Ep. p. 137. asserted to Emperours This being clear'd which was by him on purpose perplex'd If we take the extent of the Regal power from this Bishop He tells p Id. p. 10. us That Sovereign's as Nursing Fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all Inferiour Ministers perform their faithfull duties in their several places and if they be found faulty to punish them His next Author is Mr. Thorndike Who is as large
a Bur. V. 2. App. p. 390. 391. was depriv'd for Misprision of Treason He was a firm Friend of the Protector and so well satisfied with the first changes which were made that he is complain'd of by Gardiner as well as Cranmer in a Letter which he wrote to the Protector b Ibid. Bonner and Gardiner were depriv'd for not Preaching up the King's Autority to be the same under Age as after which is a point purely Secular and relating to the Constitutions of this Government c Bur. Hist V. 2. p. 70. Gardiner in the Sermon for an Omission in which he was depriv'd exprest himself very fully concerning the Pope's Supremacy as justly abolish'd and the Suppression of Monasteries and Chantries approv'd of the King's proceedings thought Images might have been well us'd but yet might be taken away approv'd of Communion in both kinds of the abolition of Masses and new Order of Communion asserted indeed the Corporal Presence but that was not yet declar'd against a Bur. V. 2. p. 121. Bonner complied so easily with every Order of Council that it was not easie to find any complaint against him b Bur. V. 2. App. p. 390. Heath and Day complied with all the changes that were made in the first 4 Years of this King's reign and both preach'd and wrote for them They were depriv'd by Lay-Delegates in the 5th Year of King Edward and my Author hence guesses it was for some Offence against the State After this account I need not be sollicitous to examine Whether the Causes assign'd by our Author were just Causes of deprivation or not having prov'd that they were not at all the Causes As for the Ejection of the rest of King Edward's Bishops by Q. Mary this he saith will be justifiable if done 1st For a lawful Cause 2ly By a lawful Judge which therefore he assigns The Causes here he supposes to be all the Articles of Reformation as distinct to Popery viz. Marriage of Clergy denying the Papal and asserting the Regal Supremacy accusing the Church-Service of Idolatry denying the corporal presence in the Eucharist or that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice c. This again he asserts upon his own Autority which had need to be great since it contradicts all others Of the Bishops ejected by Q. Mary besides c Bur. Hist V. 2. p. 247. those who made room for the re-entrance of the former Possessors not unjustly ejected so far as has yet appeâ—â—â—d and therefore unjustly reintroduc'd d Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 256. Four of them Holgate Farrars Bird and Bush were ejected for Marriage e Ibid. p. 257. Three others Taylor Hooper and Harley were depriv'd by Delegates who were empower'd to declare their Sees void as they were already void a Bur. V. 2. p. 275. Barlow was made to resign b Bur. V. 2. p. 257. Cranmer the only remaining Bishop in the Catalogue was esteem'd Arch-Bishop till he was degraded for Heresie so that he indeed was depriv'd of his See and of his Life together for the Causes alledg'd Now as for those which were ejected for Marriage it was warranted by the Law of God the Autority of the Primitive Church the Statutes of the Realm and the Synodical Act of the English Clergy Nor is it to any purpose which our Author urges that these Acts of the Parliament and Synod were repeal'd since a repeal could only abrogate the Law for the future not void it from the beginning it might make that Marriage should be not that it should have been unlawful it might legitimate the proceedings against these Bishops if they retain'd their Wives not warrant the deprivation of them for what was past Nor is it more material which is here urg'd that the Laws which legitimated such Marriage were void in their making as being contrary to the Canons of Superior Councils untill it be proved that those Councils which prohibited such Marriage were our lawful Superiors and if so had power to lay such a Yoke upon their Subjects For these Councils he refers me to the Discourse of Celibacy and for a Reply I refer him to the Answer to it As for the next 3 Bishops Taylor Hooper and Harley their Judges were not to seek for a Cause who had power to declare their Sees void as they were already void But let us at last suppose the Causes of their Deprivation the same as are by him alleg'd as it is confest they were the Causes for which Cranmer was depriv'd and for which He and others were burnt Yet whether these were just Causes of Deprivation or not doth not depend upon this Man 's confident Assertion but on the truth of the thing It seems something arrogant thus Magisterially in one breath to condemn all those Doctrines of the Reformation which have hitherto stood the shock against all their Arguments and their Faggots their Bellarmines and their Bonners The Reformers for some Years have been writing and dying in Justification of these Doctrines and doth this Author at last think that the very naming of them is Evidence enough that those Bishops who were ejected for their adherence to them were rightfully ejected as to the Cause But it is enough with these Men to condemn an Opinion that it is not their own For as for the truth of particular Doctrines whether there be a Trinity whether Christ and the Holy Ghost be God or the like these we are told a Guide in Controv. Preface are things that trouble none who hath once undergone the Mortification of dethroning his own Judgment and hath captivated it to the Unity of the Church's Faith But as they were regularly ejected as to the cause so they were as to the Judg they being not ejected he saith by the Queen's Commissioners but by the delegates of the Western Patriarch This not to speak too bluntly is a b Book of Educ p. 294. Edit Ox. 1677. Gasconade with a Witness Had not the World been presented with a Collection of Records such an Assertion as this would have been more tolerable but to tell us they were not depriv'd by the Queen's Commissioners when we can have recourse to the c Bur. Vol. 2. Coll. p. 256. 257. Original Commissions by which they were depriv'd became one who writes as if he had no reputation to lose But the Judges were to be prov'd Canonical the Delegates of the Prince had before been affirm'd to be Uncanonical and this being a knot impossible to be untied the Knight-Errant boldly cuts it § 65 Having prov'd that these Bishops were regularly ejected as to the cause and as to the Judge the next Question is whether they were regularly burnt too As for the burning of Heretics it is to be consider'd He saith that the Secular Laws not Ecclesiastical appoint it and the Secular Magistrates not Ecclesiastical execute it This amounts to no more than that Kings are the Pope's Executioners they are requir'd to