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
and approved of all the faithful Ministers of Gods word Where note That tho in some of these Articles §. 45. n. 2. the Authority of Parliament is mentioned yet in none of these is any thing said of the consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Regal or Parliamentary Injunctions in Ecclesiastical matters valid From which may be collected That when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mentioned as sometimes it is See the Letter of the King and Council to Bishop Bonner Fox p. 1186 and the Kings Message to the Rebels of Cornwal Fox p. 1189 it is not to add any Authority to those Injunctions thereby which Injunctions were imposed on the Clergy before any Synodal consent of the Clergy was either given or asked but to propose the judgment and example of the Clergy consenting as a motive to render others that stand out conformable as whose judgment they ought to reverence and whose example they ought to follow not as whose Decree and Constitution they ought to obey And if you wonder why the King and Parliament of those days never pleaded this last as you shall never find it pleaded by them the reason I conjecture was besides that they were conscious of some changes made by them of these Ecclesiastical Judges displacing those who would not conform to their Inclinations which rendred them not so authentical because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force by vertue of their Office or any Commission from Christ but that so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were Superior to the English Clergy and which were contrary to the Laws of this National Synod and so would void and make them of none effect And if the King by vertue of his Supremacy urged his and his Subjects freedome from the former Laws and Constitutions of the Church Vniversal so must he from the present Laws of his own Church National He and his Subjects being tied in no more Duty to the one than to the other nor in so much § 46 If you would know how Bishop Gardiner behaved himself in this Tryal it was with great perplexity and distraction as neither knowing now how safely to recal and recant that Supremacy of the King in Spirituals which he had formerly acknowledged and sworn to nor how in that Duty which he owed to the Church to obey those particular Injunctions which the King imposed upon him by vertue of this Supremacy acknowledged by him and so he incurred for this latter deprivation and imprisonment And perhaps it may be thought a just judgment from God that he should be thus ensnared and undone by that sense of Supremacy of which he had been in Henry the Eighth's days both at home and abroad See §. 37. as you have heard from Calvin so zealous an Abettor § 47 I will conclude these Evidences under Edward the Sixth with what is said in Antiquit. Brittannic p. 339. which quotes for it the Archives touching the resentment of their lost Synodal Authority which some of the Clergy shewed in a Synod called by Arch-Bishop Cranmer in the First Year of King Edward's Reign for the furthering of a Reformation tho he could effect nothing therein In which Synod the Clergy now too late perceiving that not only the Pope but themselves had lost their former Ecclesiastical Power and that the King and Parliament ordered Spiritual Affairs as they pleased without their consents requested that at least the rest of their Convocation might be joyned with the House of Commons as the Bishops were with the Lords that so they might have a Vote also in passing Church matters but this request would not be granted them The Authors words are these Animadverterunt Praelati omnem vim authoritatemque Synodi non modò diminutam sed penitus fractam eversamque esse postquam Clerus in verbo Sacerdotis Henrico Regi promisisset sine authoritate Regiâ in Synodo se nihil decreturos or indeed that the King might decree what he pleased without the Authority of the Synod for such a Supremacy was either granted to or assumed by the King Quâ Ecclesiasticarum rerum potestate abdicatâ Populus in Parliamento caepit de rebus divinis inconsulto Clero sancire tum absentis cleri privilegia immunitates sensim detrahere juraque duriora quibus Clerus invitus teneretur constituere Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est Proinde petierunt ut in Concilio inferiori Praelati Clerique procuratores cum populo permixti de Republicâ Ecclesiâ unà consulant c. Thus that Author And you may see also the Petition it self lately Printed out of a Manuscript of Arch-Bishop Cranmers by Mr. Stillingfleet Irenicum 2. Part 8. c. Where seeking too late to recover their former Steerage in Ecclesiastical Affairs now transacted in the Court of Parliament the Lower House of Convocation prefers these Requests That Whereas in a Stat. 25. Hen. 8. the Clergy had promised in Verbo Sacerdotii never from thenceforth to Enact c any new Canons Constitutions c unless the Kings Assent and Licence may to them be had c therefore they desire that the Kings Majesties Licence may be for them obtained authorizing them to attempt and commune of such matters and therein freely to give their consent which otherwise they may not do upon pain and peril premised That either the Clergy of the Lower House of the Convocation may be adjoyned and associate with the Lower House of Parliament or else that all such Statutes as shall be made concerning matters of Religion may not pass without the sight and assent of the said Clergy or as it runs in the Second Petition the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto and their Answers and Reasons not heard That since the former were annulled Ecclesiastical Laws may be established in the Realm by Thirty Two persons or so many as shall please the King to appoint c. That all Judges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril That whereas they were informed that certain Prelates and other Learned Men were appointed to alter the Service in the Church and did make certain Books c the said Books may be seen and perused by them for a better expedition of Divine Service c. That such matters as concern Religion which be disputable may be reasoned and disputed amongst them in this House whereby the Verity of such matters shall the better appear c. Thus laboured then the poor Clergy to obtain a joint share at least with the Parliament and civil State in transacting the Affairs of the Church And Dr. Heylin in Reform Justified § 4. p. 21. grants thus much That the Censures of the Church were grown weak if not invalid and consequently by degrees became neglected ever after that King Henry the Eighth took the Headship on him and exercised the same by
ex hac altaris participatione Sacro-sanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione c. repleamur seems to be thus changed because Christ's body and blood were held by some only to be present to and received by the worthy Communicant and not to the Symbols And altho we be unworthy c. to offer unto thee any Sacrifice yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service and command these our Prayers and Supplications put instead of panis sanctus calix salutes by the ministery of thy Holy Angels to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle formerly Altare before the sight of thy Divine Majesty c. § 149 Thus were things mended in the first Form of King Edward 2 Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer Book in relation to the same Sacrifice Stat 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. But in the latter Common-Prayer Book which came out a new-reformed three years after there is no oblation at all made nor no petition put up be tween the Consecration and the receiving of the Holy Mysteries but the one immediately follows the other The Collect of humble access We do not presume to come c. and the Lord's Prayer with its Preface Divinâ institutione formati audemus dicere and the Memorial or Prayer of Oblation which are put according to the manner of the Mass after the consecration of the holy Mysteries and before the receiving of them in the first Form are all removed in the second and the first placed before the Elements begin to be consecrated and the other two placed after the holy Mysteries are removed from the Altar or Table and are distributed to the Communicants and in the Prayer of Oblation the first part thereof We do celebrate and make the Memorial c. is omitted The reason of which alteration seems to be That so the new Service might still appear more remote from making any oblation to God of the consecrated Mysteries remaining on the Table or from making any request to God in the vertue of the Body and Blood of our Saviour there present § 150 But 3. Coucernâ—â—g the reduction of sâ—ne things â—ouching this matter in the new Cömon Prayer Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of K. Edward again in the last English Liturgy prepared for Scotland the sober moderation of those who governed the Church at this time thought fit to reduce things as far as without offence they might to the first Form of King Edward restoring all these Prayers to their former place again and re-inserting the Memorial in the Front of the Prayer of Oblation Moreover in the Prayer for the State of the Catholick Church adding these words We commend especially unto thy merciful goodness the Congregation here assembled to celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious death and sacrifice of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ before which Prayer also they order an oblation to be of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table All which they seem to have done as regretting the mistaken zeal of their Fore-fathers mis-led by Calvin and other forreign Reformers but not finding as yet a season for a more compleat reduction of the Reformation to the former universal practice of the Church of God § 151 Much complained of in Laudensium autocatacrisis Of all which things thus complains the contrary Party who looked upon their alterations with a zealous eye in Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 109. As for that wicked Sacrifice of the Mass which the Canon puts at the back of the Consecration the English i. e. the later Reformation of Common-Prayer Book under King Edward banisheth it all utterly out of their Book But the faction to shew their zeal in their reforming the Errors of the English Church their Mother 1. puts down here in our Book the Book sent to Scotland at the back of the Consecration their Memento and Prayer of Oblation 2. That Prayer of Thansgiving beginning O Lord c. we thy humble servants entirely desire which the English sets after the Communion in a place where it cannot be possibly abused as it is in the Mass for a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood they transpose and set it just in the old place where it stood in the order of Sarum at the back of the Consecration and before the Communion 3. The clause of the Missal which for its savour of a Corporal presence the English put out of this Prayer may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Christ Jesus they have here restored 4. That we may plainly understand that this Prayer is so transplanted and supplied for this very end that it may serve as it did of old in the Missal for a Prayer of Oblation of that unbloody Sacrifice by the Priest for the sins of the world behold the first eight lines of it which of old it had in the Missal but which in the Reformation the second Reformation under Edward were scraped out are plainly restored wherein we profess to make and over again to make before God's Divine Majesty a Memorial as Christ hath commanded Which making not only the Papists but Heylin speaking from Canterbury expounds far otherwise than either Andrews Hooker Mountague or the grossest of the English Divines for a true proper corporal visible unbloody sacrificing of Christ for which sacrificing first the Apostles and then all Ministers are as truly Priests tho Evangelical and after the order of Melchisedech as ever the Sons of Aaron were under the Law and the Communion-Table as true and proper an Altar as ever was the Brasen Altar of Moses you may see Dr. Heylin 's words in Antid p. 6. § 2. 5. After the Consecration and Oblation they put to the Lord's Prayer with the Missals Preface Audemus dicere Where the Papists tell us that the Priest having offered up in an unbloody Sacrifice the body of Christ for the reconciling of us to the Father becomes bold to say with a loud voice Pater noster The English to banish such absurdities put away that naughty Preface and removed the Prayer it self from that place But our men to shew their Orthodoxy repone the Prayer in the own old place and set before it the old Preface 6. The first English Prayer We do not presume c. which stood before the Consecration where the passages of eating Christ's Body and drinking Christ's Blood could not possibly be detorted to a corporal presence yet now in our Book must change the place and be brought to its old Stance after the Consecration and Oblation immediately before the Communion as a Prayer of humble access Thus Autocatacrisis sounded the Trumpet not without a sad storm falling afterward upon the heads of the English Clergy § 152 Aad the Câ—lemation of the Eucharist prohibited whâ—n note other to communicate wiâ—h the Priest All use of the Eucharist as a
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
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
Thomas Dobb a Master of Art upon the same Account who also dyed in Prison Fox p. 1180. In Queen Elizabeth's days one Jo. Lewes and Matthew Hammond were burnt for Hereticks after they were first condemned by the Bishop and so delivered over to the Secular Power as those were in Queen Mary's Reign So also was Hacket executed then partly for Heresy and Blasphemy See Hollin Qu. Eliz. A. Reg. 21. 25. and Two Brownists Coppin and Thocker hanged at St. Edmunds-bury An. Dom. 1583 for Publishing Brown's Book written against the Common-Prayer-Book Likewise several others in her time condemned and recanting bare their Faggots See Stow p. 679 680. Stow p. 1174 Cambden 's Hist Eliz. p. 257. In King James's time Bartholomew Legat was burnt for an Heretick And in his time An. 3. Jac. 4. c. a Law was Enacted concerning Hanging Drawing and Quartering any who should turn Papist and be reconciled to the Pope and See of Rome tho a meer Laick tho one taking the Oath of Allegiance as several reconciled do The Words are If any shall be willingly reconciled to the Pope or See of Rome or shall promise Obedience to any such pretended Authority that every such Person or Persons shall be to all intents adjudged Traytors Is not this putting to death for pretended Heresy And to a Death worse than Burning So in Protestant States abroad Servetus by that of Geneva Valentinus Gentilis by that of Berne were burnt for Hereticks Calvin approving § 66 This to shew the Protestant's judgment concerning the justness and equity of the Law of burning Hereticks But whether this Law in it self be just and again if just whether it may justly be extended to all those simple People put to death in Queen Mary's days such as St. Austine calls Haereticis credentes because they had so much Obstinacy as not to recant those Errors for which they saw their former Teachers Sacrifice their Life especially when they were prejudiced by the most common contrary Doctrine and Practice in the precedent times of Edward the Sixth and had lived in such a condition of life as neither had means nor leisure nor capacity to examine the Church's Authority Councils or Fathers ordinarily such persons being only to be reduced as they were perverted by the contrary fashion and course of the times and by Example not by Argument either from reason or from authority and the same as I say of these Laity may perhaps also be said of some illiterate Clergy whether I say this Law may justly be extended to such and the highest suffering death be inflicted especially where the Delinquents so numerous rather than some lower Censures of Pecuniary Mulcts or Imprisonment these things I meddle not with nor would be thought at all in this place to justify Tho some amongst those unlearned Lay-people I confess to have been extreamly Arrogant and obstinate and zealous beyond knowledge and tho they had suffered for a good Cause yet suffering for it on no good or reasonable ground as neither themselves being any way Learned nor pretending the Authority of any Church nor relying on any present Teachers but on the certainty of their own private judgment interpreting Scripture as you may see if you have a mind in the Disputations of Anne Askew Fox p. 1125. Woodman the Iron-maker Fox p. 1800. Fortune the Smith Fox p. 1741. Allen the Miller Fox p. 1796. and other Mechanicks with Bishops and other Learned Men concerning the lawfulness of the Mass the Authority of the Church the Number of the Sacraments the manner or possibility of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist c themselves afterward penning or causing to be penned you may judge with what Integrity the Relations which we have of the said Disputations See more concerning the erroneous zeal of such like Persons in Fox Monuments later Edition Vol. 3. Fol. 242. 286. 396. 886. § 67 This concerning the lawful Ejection of those Protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places To. γ. 1. which if lawful so also will be the introduction of those who were chosen in their rooms tho this Introduction was * 1. whilst they Living or * 2. without their or the Metropolitan's Consent 1. Tho whilst they Living if such Election of them be after that the other are justly ejected Of this none can doubt Now most of the Protestant Bishops were ejected at the very beginning of Queen Mary's days for being married tho some of them not so speedily sentenced for Heresy But suppose the Introduction of the other was whilst they living and before their lawful Ejection yet these Bishops that are so unjustly I grant introduced if after that the others are ejected then their Superiors having the power to elect into such place do acknowledge and approve them from thence forward begin to be legitimate and enjoy a good Title § 68 2. To δ. 2. Tho without their or the Metropolitan's Consent For if the Arch-Bishop without whose consent the Canon permitteth not any Bishop to be consecrated in his Province be upon just cause and especially upon suspicion of Heresy in any restraint so as he cannot safely be suffered either in respect of the Church or State any longer to execute his office till cleared of such guilt here his Office is rightly administred as in Sede vacante by some other whether it be by some Bishop of the Province his Ordinary Vice-gerent or Substitute in such Cases or by the Delegates of that Authority which in the Church is Superior to the Arch-Bishops or by the consent of the major part of the Bishops of such Province And so Arch-Bishop Cranmer being at Queen Mary's first Entrance accused 1. of being Married an Irregularity incurring Deposition and also confessed and 2. of Treason and 3. of Heresy and for the Second of these being by the Queen's Council immediately imprisoned and shortly after condemned to dye before the Consecration of any new Bishop his Office was now lawfully supplyed by another either by Cardinal Pool the Popes Legat or by the Bishop the next dignified Person after the Arch-Bishop in the Province or by whomsoever the Queen should depute as for any exceptions that the Arch-Bishop could make against it since he acknowledged her for the Supreme Head of the English Church Or if notwithstanding such his restraint or condemnation according to the Canon no new Bishop could be made without the Arch-Bishop's consent yet could Arch-Bishop Cranmer justly claim no such Authority from the Canon as indeed he never did 1. Because he held the abrogation of such Canons to be in the Power of the Prince as the Supreme Head of this Church at least when assisted with the Parliament and major part of the Clergy And so then was this arguing ad homines abrogated by Queen Mary appointing allowing these new Elections 2. Because he had consented to the Statutes made formerly 25. Hen. 8.20 c. and 1
those scruples that were made by some against the Oath And further her Majesty forbiddeth her Subjects to give credit to such persons See Canâ—od Hâ—st Elâ—z p. 20. who notify to her Subjects how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings or Queens of this Realm may challenge authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church Wherein her Subjects be much abused For her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority than that was challenged and lately used by King Henry and King Edward which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Grown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal so as no other Sovereign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them but this Sovereignty and Rule I suppose must be understood to extend to all the Particulars which Queen Elizabeth 's Statute but now recited alloweth to belong to it and wherein Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it And if any Person who hath conceived any other sense of the Form of the said Oath i. e. that in it the Queen challenged Authority of Ministery of Divine Offices in the Church shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation sense or meaning i. e. that she had such Sovereignty as was challenged and lately used by her Father and Brother Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such Person in that behalf as her Obedient Subject Thus the Admonition and the same is said in the Statute 5. Eliz. 1. c referring to the Admonition That none other Authority was by that Oath acknowledged in her Majesty than that which was challenged and used by those Two Kings See likewise 1 Eliz. 1. c the Repeal of the former way of the Tryal of Hereticks that was revived according to the former Statutes by Queen Mary leaving the Supremacy in Spirituals to Church-men § 72 Neither do the several things Where Concerning certain qâ—alifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed that are noted by Dr. Fern in his Examen of Champny 9. c. § 16.20 and others as qualifications and bounds of the Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth seem to come home to their purpose so far as to render it justifiable There are urged by them 1. The Stile she used in calling her self not Supream Head but only Supream Governor 2. The Words in the Admonition viz. Her Majesty doth not challenge any other Authority than under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons c as the words are recited but now 3. The words of the 37. Article of the Church of England relating to these of the Admonition We give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers 4. The Qualification of the Authority of the Queen's Commissioners to judge or determine Heresies Provided always that such persons authorized c. See the Words quoted before § 70. § 73 But to these it is rationally replyed And the Replies to them Reply to the First To the First That if the same and as much power be still signified by the Queen's Title now as was before by the other which hath been shewed but now in the Statute in the Admonition c what matters the varying of words that alters nothing in the sense Neither is the Title of Head of the Church so it be understood subordinate to Christ incompetent to some person or other here on earth § 74 To the Second To the 2d That the words quoted out of the Admonition may indeed be taken in such a general sense that all sides will willingly subscribe to For the Queen hath a Sovereignty and Rule over all manner persons born within her Realms so i. e. in such manner as no other Forreign Sovereign Power hath namely in this manner to punish her Subjects whatsoever with the Temporal Sword either for the Breach of the Church's Canons and Decrees or for the Breach of her own Laws Again That the words may be taken in such a sense as that tho they signified no more of which presently yet none can justly subscribe them supposing those things true concerning the Western Patriarch and concerning Superior Councils and concerning Church Constitutions which are laid down in the First and Second Part of Church Government and in the Fourth and Eighth Thesis namely if they be taken in this sense That no Forreign Power hath any Ecclesiastical Superiority or Jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever over the Church of England without reflecting on this Controversy at all namely Whether the Sovereign Power here at home for the judging and reforming of what is Error Heresy Superstition c and for the abrogating or establishing the former Liturgies of the Church Canons of Superior or also National Synods doth lye in the Prince or in some others viz the Clergy of this Nation or also in the Parliament or in all these jointly so that the Clergy can do none of these things without the Prince or Parliament nor Prince without the major part of Clergy But these Two Senses of these words of which the later is not justifiable are both of them too much restrained in respect of the intent of this Admonition as may be gathered from the Precedents in the same Admonition where the Queen's Sovereignty is extended to all the Particulars wherein Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it And from the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. but now recited which surely this Admonition was not written to contradict or repeal And from the ordinary practice of these Princes which shall be more shewed anon without which Practice such Reformation could not have been effected and therefore this Practice must be justified And from the Testimony of the Protestant Writers who vindicate and maintain a Supremacy of a much larger extent and answerable to the Expressions in the Acts of Parliament even to the Prince's not only ruling over all Persons Ecclesiastical but judging and determining in matters Ecclesiastical what therein is Dissonant from or Consonant to Gods Word and then establishing it in their Dominions tho contrary to former Church Canons tho without or against the Vote of the major part of their own Clergy as shall be shewed below § 203 c which thing also is maintained to have been done by the Holy Kings of Israel § 75 To the Third the same may be repeated which is said to the
sunt prorsus abroganda censuimus Quorum loco en vobis authoritate nostrâ editas leges damus quas a vobis omnibus suscipi coli observari volumus sub nostrae indignationis paenâ mandamus Thus the King Where the meaning of the words decreta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt must be extended to Decrees not only Pontifical but Synodal wherein the Pope presided for the Canon-Law is compiled of both these and over both these did the Kings Supremacy claim Authority in his Dominions and over whatsoever else seemed to him established not by Divine but only by Humane Authority See before § 22.23.27 And also the things changed by him were not the Decrees of Popes but of Councils § 80 By vertue of such a Supremacy he put forth certain Injunctions A. D. 1536. concerning matters of Faith Intitled Articles devised by the Kings Highness to stable Christian quietness and unity amongst the People you may read them set down at large in Mr. Fuller's Church History 5. l. p. 216 for Mr. Fox his Epitome of them conceals many things It is true that these Articles as also the Six Articles published afterward 1539 and the Necessary Doctrine set forth 1543. do for the matter of them as they seem to me discede in nothing from the Doctrines of former Councils nor have nothing in them favouring the reformed Opinions for they allow Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory kneeling and praying before tho not to Images the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Auricular Confession and do not deny Seven Sacraments as some misrelate them because they speak only of Three which Seven Sacraments are all acknowledged and treated on in Necessary Doctrine c. And it cannot be denyed that the Clergy of King Henry also whom he used much more than his Successors King Edward and Queen Elizabeth in his Consultations concerning Religion were except in the introducing of the Kings Supremacy very opposite to the Reformation of other Doctrines or Ceremonies in the Church as appears by the Mala dogmata transcribed out of the Records by Mr. Fuller 5. l. p. 209. to the Number of 67. much agreeing with the Modern Tenents of Puritans Anabaptists and Quakers which Mala Dogmata being by the Lower House of Convocation at this time presented to the Upper House of Bishops to have them condemned occasioned the production of these Injunctions But yet notwithstanding all this for the manner of the Edition of these Injunctions or Articles it is to be noted that the King by vertue of his Supremacy commands them to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judged by him agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God and makes the Clergy therein only his Counsellor and Adviser not a Law-giver See besides the Title his words in the Preface to those Injunctions Which determination debatement and agreement of the Clergy saith he forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good right and true judgment and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God we have caused the same to be published requiring you to accept repute and take them accordingly i. e. as agreeable to Gods Laws and Ordinances So where in these Injunctions he commandeth the Observation of Holy-days he saith We must keep Holy-days unto God in Memory of Him and his Saints upon such days as the Church hath ordained except they be mitigated and moderated by the Assent and Commandment of us the Supream Head to the Ordinaries and then the Subjects ought to obey it such command § 81 By vertue of such a Supremacy he afterward published a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith In putting forth a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Sâ—x A ticles and of the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same for matter of Doctrine not much differing from the Injunctions mentioned before which Book he Entitled A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People adding a Preface thereto in his Royal name to all his faithful and loving Subjects That they might know saith he the better in those dangerous times what to believe in point of Doctrine and how to carry themselves in points of Practice Which Book before the publishing thereof after it saith Dr. Heylin Reform Chur. Engl. § 4. p. 23. was brought into as much Perfection as the said Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Learned Men appointed by the King to this work would give it without the concurrence of the Royal Assent was presented once again to the Kings consideration who very carefully perused and altered many things with his own hand as appears by the Book it self extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library and having so altered and corrected it in some Passages returned it to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Cranmer who bestowed some further pains upon it that being to come forth in the Kings Name and by his Authority there might be nothing in the same that might be justly reprehended For a Preparatory to which Book that so it might come forth with the greater credit the King caused an Act to pass in Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. for the abolishing of all Books and Writings comprising any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that Doctrine which since the Year 1540 is or any time during the Kings life shall be set forth by his Highness Thus Dr. Heylin Which Definitions Decrees and Ordinances so set forth by the King all his Subjects were fully to believe obey and observe 32. Hen. 8. 26. c. See before § 32. And if any Spiritual Person should preach or teach contrary to those Determinations or any other that should be so set forth by his Majesty such Offender the third time contrary to that Act of Parliament was to be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and to suffer pains of death by Burning See before § 34. By which Act therefore amongst other things the holding of the Pope's Supremacy which is contrary to the Doctrine of that Book is declared Heresy And see the like ordained by Parliament concerning the Six Articles in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. where it is Enacted That every Person that doth preach teach declare argue against any of the Six Articles being thereof convicted shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick § 82 And thus Heresy now belonging to the Kings Cognizance as the Church's Supream Head became also by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joyned with the Kings a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King 's Of their Cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but the adjudging of it And their Vote herein was joyned at least with that of the Clergy if not in Authority preferred before it as appears by these and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14 c. mentioned before § 34 and in the two Proviso's of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned
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
compulsion See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law saith she unless it be a late law of your own making for the altering matters of Religion which is not worthy to have the name of a Law both for c and for the partiality used in the same But I am well assured that the King his Fathers Laws were all allowed and consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal c. Thus the Lady Mary An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my remembrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector Sec before §. â—04 That in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor he in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops I have here on purpose thrown together thus many testimonies to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations and to manifest the more how neither the Prelates except those new ones whom King Edward advanced nor the inferiour Clergy neither at first nor at last were so conforming to the Kings proceedings as is pretended out of the charge against Winchester That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received c. § 126 To θ. 1. To θ. First That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward we do not find that the major part of the Clergy in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth year of the Kings Reign is pretended to have consented to any of them save one namely the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments in the second year of the King and that consent was also had after this Book was first passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament as may be gathered 1. Both by the Act which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men which were in all fourteen whereof seven Bishops two of which were Cranmer and Ridley but not any concurrence or authority of a Synod See Heylin Sect 5.7 3â— But had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament this which was more would rather have been mentioned than the other which was less and which Act also by vertue of it self see before § 40. not of arty Synodical Act confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book 2. And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward which was authoritate Regis Parliamenti as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Which stile differs much from either of these A Rege Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus i. e that it might be established by the Church's authority or Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi Parliamento propositus i. e that being established by the Church it might be enjoyned also under temporal punishments by the State Laws Neither do the words following in that Article see them recited before § 110. Express any authoritative ratification but only a single testimony of their judgment concerning those Forms or say any thing which any other person void of authority may not use Now of this consent of the Convocations An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first Common-Prayer-Book a chief motive besides fear of punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments Injunctions or Laws was as I conceive this because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church as likewise the later Common-Prayer-Book more omissions but no declaration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine of which I shall say more by and by And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have staid here See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable tho these omissions I excuse not as faultless or not offending against former Church-Canons But his Reformation proceeded much further to the condemning also of the Church's tenents and practice which cannot be shewed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government of which I shall speak hereafter But as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions from the paucity of the number of those who were imprisoned or ejected in comparison of the rest the argument is not good First Because many more might dissent and refuse obedience thereto then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it Might Nay did dissent for the Parliament beggeth their pardon see before § 120 and it is accounted a prudent policy of State where very many are guilty only to punish some of the chief for Example sake Secondly And again many more might be ejected or questioned for this than are by name mentioned in Fox or others and were so if you consider the testimonies before cited Thirdly But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected yet as where all the rest unanimously accord this restraint of a few changeth not the Church-affairs so when such a body is divided and all the rest are not of one mind this withdrawing of a few especially if these be the prime Leaders and the introducing of so many new voters who are of a contrary perswasion into their rooms suppose taking away six old Bishops and putting six new ones in their places may render that which was before a major and the more prevalent now a lesser and a weaker part and consequently if they be unjustly withdrawn will render the Act of this major part invalid § 127 Secondly 2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer c. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy inforcing as other Ecclesiastical Injunctions of the King so also the new Form of Communion before it was proposed to any Parliament or Convocation for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies that I may spare the taedium of repeating them But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-power had been removed from them touching which see their sad complaint before § 47 may be gathered 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Convocation the Six Articles and the the Necessary Doctrine 31. Hen. 8.14 c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days in the very beginning of which Arch-Bishop Cranmer called a Synod of them wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation but could not See
repugning as they might well against the late spoyl of the Church-goods taken away only by commandment of the higher powers without any law or order of Justice and without request or consent of them to whom they did belong And Calvin in a Letter to Arch-Bishop Cranmer written about An. Dom. 1551. giving a reason why the English Church was so ill stored with good Pastors hath these words Vnum apertum obstaculnm esse intelligo quod praedae expositi sunt Ecclesiae reditus So early you see even together with the first dawning of the Reformation began that Sacriledge to be committed on some Bishopricks which our days have seen accomplished on the rest Lay menders of Religion ordinarily terminating in these two things the advancing of their carnal Liberty and temporal Estates § 140 In defacing of Images By vertue of such Supremacy He caused to be removed out of Churches and to be defaced and destroyed all Images of Saints Concerning which Reformation his Council writes to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in this stile We have thought good to signify unto you that his Highnesse's pleasure with the advice and consent of us the Lord Protector and the rest of the Council is that immediately upon the sight hereof you shall give order that all the Images remaining in any Church within your Diocess be taken away and also by your Letters shall signify unto the rest of the Bishops within your Province this his Highnesse's pleasure c. Fox p. 1183. See likewise Stat. 3. and 4. Edw. 6.10 c. This he did when as the second Nicene Council not only had allowed but recommended the use of them But he proceeded also further than this and declared the worshiping and veneration of any such Images or Relicks to be repugnant to Gods word and unlawful superstitious idolatrous See the 22 of the 42 Articles and Article to Winchester 11 and the Doctrine of his Homilies § 141 By vertue of such Supremacy He imposed An. Dom. 1547 a Book of Homilies not approved by any Synod before nor after till 1552 if then in which Book were stated several Controversies of Divinity See Article 11 of the 42 referring to these Homilies for the stating of Justification ex solâ fide the King forbidding the Clergy to preach any Doctrine repugnant to the same Homilies under pain of being silenced or otherwise punished § 142 â—â—injoyning administration of the Communion in both â—inds See before § 108. Winchester Articles 15. Fox p. 1255. By vertue of such Supremacy He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion to the people in both kinds Stat. 1. Ed. 6.1 c. Coâ—cil Constant 13. sess See before §. 118. contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance and without any preceding confutation of a National Synod and notwithstanding the former late decree concerning the non-necessity thereof by the same National Synod in Henry the Eighth's days in the second of the Six Articles § 143 In suppressieg the former Church Liungies Ordiaals and other Rituals By vertue of such Supremacy He caused to be removed and suppressed the former Church Liturgies and Rituals for the publick Prayers for the celebration of the Communion and other Sacraments for the Ordinations of the Clergy See Fox p. 1211. The King saith he with the body and state of the Privy Council then being directed out his Letters of request and strait commandment to the Bishops in their Diocess to cause and warn all Parsons Curates c. to bring in and deliver up all Antiphoners Missals Grailes Processionals Manuals Legends Pies Ordinals and all other Books of Service the having whereof might be any let to the Service now set forth in English charging also and commanding all such as should be found disobedient in this behalf to be committed unto ward Saying in the Articles sent to Winchester That the Mass was full of abuses Fox p. 1235. and had very few things of Christ's institution besides the Epistle Gospel and the Lord's Prayer and the words of the Lord's Supper that the rest for the more part were invented and devised by Bishops of Rome and by other men of the same sort i. e. by Ecclesiastical Constitution and therefore were justly taken away by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm this being the perswasion of those times That the King as Supreme might change as to him seemed good any thing established only by humane tho it were Church authority And see Stat. 3 4. Edw. 6.10 c. Whereas the King hath of late set forth and established an uniform Order of Common-Prayer and whereas in the former Service-Books are things corrupt untrue vain and superstitious Be it enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled that all Missals Ordinals c. heretofore used for Service of the Church shall be utterly abolished extinguished c. § 144 And injetting uâ— new Forms of celebrating the Communion But you must observe that all was not done at once or at the first but by certain steps and degrees For Example The Form of administring the Communion suffered three Alterations or Reformations one after another the later still departing further from the ancient Form used in the Church than the former First the King assembled certain Bishops and others at Windsor in the first year of his Reign such as he pleased to appoint to compile a new Form of celebrating the Communion according to the Rule saith Fox p. 1184 of the Scriptures of God and first usage of the Primitive Church Yet the Bishops at this time so ordered and moderated the matter which perhaps may be the reason of those words in Fox see before § 125. See Heylin Hist. of K. Edw. p. 57. That the Protector at Windsor in the zealous defence of Gods truth opposed the Bishops that the whole office of the Mass should proceed as formerly in the Latine even to the very end of the Canon and the receiving of the Sacrament by the Priest himself Which done the Priest is appointed to begin the exhortation in English We be come together at this time Dearly Beloved c. as it is in the present English Liturgy After which follows also the disswasion of great offenders impenitent from receiving the General Confession and Absolution the Prayer We presume not c. and so the administration of the Eucharist to the people in both kinds The words of the Rubrick in that first Order of the Communion reprinted at London 61 are these The time of the Communion of the people shall be immediately after that the Priest shall have received the Sacrament without the varying of any other Rite or Ceremony in the Mass until other order shall be provided But as heretofore usually the Priest hath done with the Sacrament of the Body to prepare bless and consecrate so much as will serve the people so it shall yet continue still after the same manner
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
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-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
in Queen Elizabeth's days and also in Qeeen Mary's days upon some respiring took care to reverse as well the Supremacy of Henry the Eighth as the Injunctions of Edward the Sixth And those Bishops only who came to their Bishopricks and Church-Government by the high-hand of such Supremacy have since maintained it CHAP. XIV The CONCLVSION § 218 HAving thus brought this whose Discourse of Church Government to an end Conclusion of this whole Discourse of Chur. Gov. I pray you consider a lit with me how matters stand with the Reformation generally in application thereto § 219 Where Concerning the benefit that may be hoped for from a future free General Council for the setling of present Controversies 1. First it seemeth clear That in Controversies of Religion which Christ hath foretold shall arise and in contests concerning the true sense of his word he hath not left his people under the Gospel without some visible Judge thereof beside the words of the Gospel since he did not leave his people under the Law without such Judge beside the words of the Law See what hath been said of this in Success of Clergy § 6. c. And in such Controversies concerning the meaning of the Scriptures for any party to fly only to the same Scriptures to judge this matter between them and their adversaries is as if Titius and Sempronius suing one another at the Law would have no other judge in the matter but Justinian's Code or Pandects about the meaning of which they are already in the debate 2. But if it seem reasonable that in such Controversy concerning the understanding of Scripture there should be some other Judge besides Scripture secondly it is out of question that the Church Catholick which hath such ample promises from our Saviour should be this Judge sooner than any particular person or Church therein and if the Church Catholick then a legal General Council thereof since this is the highest and ultimate way whereby the Church Catholick is capable of declaring her judgment as hath been shewed in the 2. Part § 22. c. 3. Hence therefore 3ly are the Reformed forced as it were in their debates of Religion to refer their matters to and not to decline the decisive judgment of a future legal and free General Council 4. But this seemeth by consequence to oblige them somewhat further and that in this their appeal to and acquiescence in a future General Council they cannot reasonably refuse the judgment of such Councils fore-past as have been legally General 5. And again 5ly that to denominate any former Councils to have been such they cannot rationally require any fuller conditions than have been set down in 2. Part § 4. unless they will make either no Councils at all or not all those which themselves allow to have been General And 6ly if they will thus stand to the judgment of former legal General Councils then it seems they ought also to stand to the doctrines which are cleared to them to be held and taught by the Church Catholick of that age wherein they reformed since we may presume that had a Council thereof been collected in the same times they would in it have testified the same doctrines which the Catholick Church then held But thus the Reformation will be cast since I think it is sufficiently cleared in 2. Part § 30. c. that the doctrines they opposed at least for the most of them were not only the Tenents of the Roman or other Churches adhering to it but of the whole Church Catholick of that time a thing which is of great weight and ought diligently to be examined And 7ly if they will submit to a General Council I do not see how in the absenee of a General their duty doth not bind them to submit also to a Patriarchal Council as being tho inferior to General yet superior to any Provincial or National one within the same Patriarchy And if submit to such I see not why they should reject the judgment of the Council of Trent as to the Protestant Controversies free and unforced there needing to be used no illegal or indirect proceedings herein because the Fathers in condemning these did unanimously agree as hath been shewed at large in Par. 4. § 70. by Soave's testimony in particular to these points § 220 But notwithstanding the fair inclinations the Reformed I mean some of their writers desiring that nothing here may be charged on any further than proved by some testimonies in the other places of this discourse which are here referred to may seem to have to a final decision of differences and the happy issue to their cause they seem to hope-for from the sentence of such a future Council general and free could it once be procured Yet there are not a few things which well considered do discover their diffidence in any such tryal and no such submission in them to such Council could it be assembled as is necessary to the ending of contentions As namely these following 1. That for the Councils which have been held already in the Church they have so limited the obligation to their authority and clogged it with such conditions which you may be pleased to review in 2. Par. § 36 37. c that in respect of these they have reserved to themselves liberty to yield or withdraw their obedience as they see fit From which we may gather that if they see need thereof they will in like manner limit the future and so render it as unobliging to them as former have been 2. That they have been so scrupulous about the Universality legal actings c. of past Councils beyond what seems requisite See 2. Par. § 4. that of eighteen or not much fewer General Councils which the other side accepts they acknowledge only four or very few more and not these four for all those decrees wherein the rest of the Church admits them See 4. Par. § 92.95 3. That they maintain that tho all the Church-guides never shall yet the major part of the Church guides and of such Councils may dangerously err to the imposing of false belief and false worship and pars melior a majore vinci See 2. Part § 29. Which tenent will overthrow the authority of such future Council also because it can hardly happen in so great n Body but that there will be some dissenters and then they will not be tyed to a major part 4. That for a future Council they demand such a one for the universality of it as probably can never be had and such voters therein as is contrary to the former customes of the Church and such other conditions as are several ways unreasonable and destructive of having Church-matters governed by the Church See concerning these the 4. Part § 65 66. c. Tho were all such their conditions observed excepting only one that nothing done in such Council should oblige till their consent first obtained I see not but that things
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
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
in this Matter As for this Objection of the Clergy's being aw'd by fear in this Act he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the then Lady Mary which shews the vanity of it p. 142. I am well assur'd saith She speaking of Edward VI. in her Letter to the Council that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it That could an Oecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops unjustly excluded and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduc'd partly of those who have been first bribed with Mony and promises of Church-praeferment or praeengag'd by Oaths to comply with the Vsurpations of a praetended Spiritual Monarch is not to be accounted a lawful Oecumenical Synod nor the Acts thereof free and valid especially as to their establishing such usurpations This is a Thesis which needs no Application I proceed to his Sixth Thesis That the Judgment and consent of some Clergy-men of a Province when they are the lesser part cannot be call'd the judgment and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province This Assertion that a lesser part is not aequall to the Whole is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse and the Reader may hence be convinc'd that our Author doth sometimes travel in the * Educ p. 119. High road of Demonstration But here we desire it may be prov'd either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obey'd rather then the Major part judging contrary to it In the mean time it is easily reply'd that the judgment and consent of some few Bishops * Soave Hist Conc. Tr. p. 153. suppose 48. Bishops and 5. Cardinals giving Canonical Autority to books Apocryphal and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original cannot be esteem'd the judgment and consent of the Catholic Church 7th Thesis That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils or also to a National Synod The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy but because every one must give an account of his own Faith every one is oblig'd to take care that what he submits to the belief of be consistent with his Christianity I am oblig'd to pay all submission to the Church-Autority but the Church having bounds within which she ought to be restrain'd in her Determinations if she transgresses these Limits and acts against that Christianity which she professes to maintain I may rather refuse obedience then forfeit my Christianity If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgment I am answerable for it at Gods Tribunal not because I usurped a right which was never granted me but because I misus'd a Liberty which was indulg'd me This we take to be the case of each private Christian and farther that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right and Worship God as is praescrib'd himself but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions ought to use all those means of discovering the Truth which God has afforded viz. consulting the Pastours of the Church reading the word of God c. And that having discover'd it He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embrac'd but not without the use of that Judgment and Discretion which to them also is allowed If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to enquire on which side God is and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter He is not on the Churches side for her Spiritual Autority Thus a good King of Israel might * 2 King 38.22 take away the High places and Altars and say unto Judah and Jerusalem Ye shall Worship before the Altar at Jerusalem because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses Nor is it any Praejudice against it * 2 King 23.9 That the Priests of the High places refus'd to come up to the Altar at Jerusalem Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute * Mat. 26.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been prov'd to be Felo de se and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have establish'd When the Gallican Church shall have receiv'd all the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils When the Western Patriach shall have rechang'd his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum it may then be seasonable to examine How far National Churches are oblig'd by things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account But I may not omit for the Reader 's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as pag. 38. It is enacted the 32d Hen. 8.26 c. That all such Determinations Decrees Definitions and Ordinances as according to God's word and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion c. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believ'd Obey'd c. Vpon which he makes this learned Note Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word i. e. when private Men think them to be so yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrain'd and private men tyed to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word i. e. when the setters forth believe them to be so To obey a thing defin'd according to God's word and to obey a thing defin'd as being according to God's word are Injunctions very different Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have clear'd this point and a School-boy that was to turn this passage into Latin would have known that as is put for which Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus All Decrees and Ordinances which according to Gods word
's of England were always Supreme Nor is this Nomination at all injurious to the Divine Right of Bishops which is not deriv'd from the Persons Electing or Nominating but the Pastors Consecrating But we have him again crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He finds the King and Parliament authorizing Arch-Bishops Bishops c. By Virtue of their Acts to take Informations concerning the not using of the Common-Prayer c. Therein prescrib'd and to punish the same by Excommunication c. The first and last of these cs are very artificially placed for corrupting the Text. After Bishops should have follow'd Chancellors and Commissaries after Excommunication Sequestration and other Censures and Processes So that the Autority given by this Act doth not necessarily respect the Bishops and that Power of Excommunicating which they have jure divino but may relate to the power given to Chancellors and Commissaries and other Officers who plead no such divine right to their respective Functions or if the Bishops are included yet not so as that they derive the power of Excommunicating from this Act but of inflicting the other punish-ments which by this Act may be inflicted Or let us suppose the Bishops authoriz'd by this Act to Excommunicate and Excommunication taken in the strictest sense for internal Censures yet this will be no injury to their Jus divinum untill it be prov'd that because God has gave the Bishops a power to Excommunicate therefore the King may not command them to put it in Execution where there is a just Cause § 41 He finds 32 Persons commission'd to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical But this he found before in King Henry's Reign where it has already been consider'd and whither I refer the Reader as often as this Author shall be pleas'd to remind us of this Discovery § 42 He finds Six Prelates and Six others commissioned to make a new form of Consecration of Bishop's and Priests He might have found that this Act as well as the former was made at the a See the Petitions of the Clergy Burn. Vol. 2. p. 47. request of the Convocation Nothing is by him excepted against the Form it self and for the Autority the Synod petition'd such a Commission might be granted the b Six Prelates and six Divines Bur. V. 2. p. 141. Persons commission'd were all Clergy Men and c King Edwards Articles Art 35. Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 218. the Synod confirm'd it when done As for the Oath against the Pope inserted in the new Ordinal it was by birth a Roman-Catholic d Fox p. 1092. King Henry's Bishops took it without scruple That e Compare the Oath in Fox with the Oath of Supremacy as it now stands part of it which this Author thinks most offensive is since put out and he may be as severe as he pleaseth upon a Non-entity The Heretical Catechism in the 43d Paragraph shall be spoken to when it meets us agen in the 166th § 43 The 44th would justifie a Protestation of Bishop Bonner's which that Bishop himself a Bur. V. 2. Coll. p. 112. recanted He is angry at Fox for calling that Protestation Popish But the Prelate himself in his recantation of it calls it unadvised of ill ex-example unreasonable and undutifull If Fox abuses the Bishop it is because Popish signifies something worse then all these § 45 We are next entertain'd with a confus'd Catalogue of Articles propos'd to Bishop Gardiner's Subscription together with our Author's Notes upon them One of the most pertinent Notes would have been that Bishop b Fox p. 1350. 1357. Gardiner subscrib'd most of these Articles but this was not for his Interest to observe His remark is that tho' in some of these Articles the Autority of Parliament is mention'd yet in none of these is any thing said of the Consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Parliamentary or Regal injunctions valid That the consent of the Clergy was urg'd to this Bishop I hope he does not deny I am sure c §. 110. it is urg'd by r. that in the charge given in against Gardiner it is said that the Injunctions were of all men for all sorts obediently receiv'd And that this charge was given in is not denied in the Reply to r. §. 119. elsewhere He confesses it The meaning must be that this consent was not urg'd under the modality of making the Regal Injunctions valid Nor do I see any Necessity it should for Gardiner had not yet so far refin'd his gross sense of the Supremacy but that he still own'd his Obligation to obey His Majestie 's Godly Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion Neither could the Imposers of these Injunctions according to their Principles lay so great a stress on the consent of the Clergy for if the matter of the Injunctions was unlawful no Church-Autority could make them lawful but if it was agreeable to the Law of God then the Civil Autority without the Synodal if that had been wanting was sufficient From this idle remark the Author has rais'd as idle a Consequence From this non-mentioning the consent of the Clergy he collects that when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mention'd as sometimes it is it is not to add any Autority to these Injunctions thereby Now to me it seemes a wild Inference that because the Synodal consent was once not urg'd as necessary therefore when-ever it was urg'd it was thought to add no Autority I may certainly obey my Prince in a thing lawful tho' my Pastor doth not at the same time exact this Obedience from me But when they both require the same Duty there ariseth a new tie of Obedience and I am now under a double Obligation But least we should wonder why the King and Parliament never pleaded any Necessity of the Synodal consent the Author conjectures the reasons to be 1st Because some of the Voters were displac'd and so their suffrage less Authentical But these places were supplied and then I would know why those who succeeded into their Pastoral charge did not also succeed into their Synodal Autority and if so why the Reformers should think the Act of a Synod less Authentical when Ridley sat there than when Bonner did His second reason is Because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force but so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods which were superior to the English Clergy And if the King urg'd his and his Subject's freedom from the Laws of the Church Vniversal so must He also from the Laws of his own Church National Church Superior Synods and the Church-Vniversal are words which sound big but when they come to be construed the Laws of the Church signifie Papal Decrees Superior Synods are put for any Council that is forreign and the Church-Vniversal dwindles into Roman-Catholic In this case I hope we may obey our Lawful Pastors tho' we reject an Usurper
be past by them It was not the Doctrine of the Catechism or Articles which was here question'd but the false ascription of the Catechism to the Synod Now the Articles being undeniably genuine they content themselves only to condemn the Doctrine of them but the Catechism being suppos'd illegitimate they subscribe both against it's Doctrine and Autority Nor could Philpot have pleaded as our Author would have had him that the Synod's composing the Articles justified the Act of the Delegates composing the Catechism since this might indeed warrant the Doctrine of the Catechism but not the entitling it to the Synod He saith all the Historians that he hath seen are silent concerning these Articles In this dispute concerning the Articles Dr. Heylin is twice mention'd and two several Books of his refer'd to in those very pages where he mentions these Articles In his a Heylin's Hist p. 121. History He thinks them debated and concluded on by a Grand Committee on whom the Convocation had devolv'd their power and esteems it not improbable that these Articles being debated and agreed upon by the said Committee might also pass the Vote of the whole Convocation though we find nothing to that purpose in the Acts thereof which either have been lost or never were registred I add or being once Registred were expung'd In his Reformation justified a Ref Justif § 4. He positively affirms that the Clergy in Synod 1552. did compose and agree upon a book of Articles Neither therefore is Dr. Heylin silent herein nor is he one of the Historians which this Author never saw Dr. Burnet is another Historian whom either this Editor had seen or ought not to have publish'd this Relation till he had first consulted him He peremptorily affirms b Bur. V 2. p. 195. that in the Year 1552. the Convocation agreed to the Articles of Religion that were prepar'd the year before But our Author has still another Objection in reserve that the Arch-Bishop Cranmer to whom it would have been an excellent Defence to have shew'd these Articles to have been subscrib'd by a full Synod yet pleaded no such thing That Reverend Martyr pleaded that the Opinions which he maintain'd were the Doctrines of the Scripture and Primitive Church that the rejection of the Pope's Supremacy the fundamental Heresie of which he was accus'd was the Unanimous Act of the whole English Clergy and Nation and which his very Judges had solemnly sworn to Now if this Plea could avail nothing in his Defence it must have been a weak Plea to have insisted on Articles past in a Synod call'd by himself and over which he by reason of his Archiepiscopal Autority had great Influence This dispute is concluded with a shrewd Remark which our Author raises from a passage of Dr. Heylin The Dr. observes that this Book of Articles was not confirm'd by any Act of Parliament whence he concludes that the Reform'd Religion cannot be call'd a Parliament Religion Hence this Author gathers that neither was it a Synodal Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating the Synods in all other transactions of the Reformation Now tho' there is ground for the Drs. observation because there is never an Act which formally gives Sanction to these Articles yet there is in one of those very Acts cited from the Doctor in this Pamphlet that which quite overthrows our Author's Conclusion For in the Act for Legitimating Marriages of Priests it is said that the untrue Slanderous report of Holy Matrimony did redound to the High dishonour of the Learned Clergy of this Realm who have determin'd the same to be most Lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by common Assent as by the Subscription of their Hands Which words plainly refer to the 31st of these Articles and are an Authoritative Testimony that they are the genuine Act of the Synod and had I doubt not been expung'd had the Commission of rasure extended to the Statute-Book I have insisted the longer on this particular because it is a matter of some moment and because the Author has here us'd more then ordinary Artifice I have not had the benefit of any Registers or Manuscripts nor am I skill'd in these niceties of History What has been said sufficiently overthrows all his Cavils but the Curious and the Learned are able to give a more Authentic and Solid account of this matter A Reply to Chapter the 11th THat the Reformation was restor'd by Q. Elizabeth after the extirpation of it by Q. Mary might have been said in fewer lines than this Author is pleas'd to use Paragraphs That some things were at first reduc'd without Synodal Autority I confess and that the Reformation had it's last settlement by a Synod he cannot deny The Act of the first Popish Convocation I esteem illegal because the Q. had sent and requir'd them under the pain of a Premunire not to make Canons The Canonicalness of Q. Mary's Clergy here acting depends upon his former Proofs which were not altogether Demonstrative But let their Autority be suppos'd just yet these Constitutions were repeal'd by a later Synod whose Autority must be conceded equal and therefore their Act as being the last Autoritative The stress therefore of the Controversy lies in this whether Q. Elizabeth's new Bishops were lawfully introduc'd and this depends upon the legality of the ejection of the Old The Cause of their ejection is confest to be their denial of the Oath of Supremacy and is just or unjust according as that Oath was lawful or unlawful Our Author therefore sets himself to examine that Oath where he first puts his own Exposition upon it and then attacqs it as so expounded Neither Q. Elizabeth's explication of her own Sense nor the Church's Exposition in her Articles favour his Construction Those who take this Oath are not perswaded that they abjure the Autority of a General Council or the Jurisdiction of their own National Clergy But if we accept it in that Sense which he is pleas'd to impose upon it Yet still the Strength of his Arguments depends on such Assertions as are to be supported by his four first part of Church-Government We must therefore wait the Edition of those before We can be satisfied of the Strength of these But if we may make an estimate of future performances from past there is no reason to expect any thing formidable from that Quarter For the only business of our Modern Controvertists is to rally up those scatter'd forces which have long since quitted the field to our Forefathers This Oath of Supremacy has exercis'd the Pens of the greatest Champions of both Churches and there is not a shadow of an Argument here brought against it but what has been baffled when manag'd with better skill and more Learning than this Author is Master of The Regal Supremacy in Opposition to the Papal has been asserted by our Kings James the first and Charles the first
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-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
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