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
onely from his Presbytership See Fox p. 1604. and not his Episcopacy For saith he We do not acknowledge you for a Bishop Which had he understood quoad Excercitium and not also quoad Characterem then neither so ought he to have acknowledged him for or degraded him as a Presbyter he being quoad excercitium no more the one then the other Now the reason why he acknowledged him no Bishop quoad Characterem was I conceive upon supposition that Ridley was not ordained by the old Form because much offence being taken at that old Form we may conjecture by the reason given in the Preface of the Statute recited before § 42. that also before the new set-form established there were in Ordinations some varyings from the old The same you may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old Form Bishop by the new and therefore degraded in Queen Mary's days only as a Priest Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new Form and therefore in his condemnation not degraded at all but treated as a meer Laick In these days likewise Bishop Bonner writ a Book call'd A profitable and necessary Doctrine c. wherein he contendeth See F. a S. Clara Eâ—chirid p. 93. that the new devised Ordination of Ministers was unsufficient and void because no authority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ but both the Ordainer and Ordained despised and impugned not onely the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass but also the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar Lastly 't is probable that Mason and others Art of Edw. 6.28 Art to whom this dispensation could not be unknown and was so serviceable for this Controversy would not have left it unmentioned could they have made any such construction thereof as Bishop Bramhal doth 2. In general those who are truly ordained yet if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church their true Orders as to the exercise of them are unlawful and so unless a Church be first cleared from Heresy and Schisme these Orders are not rightly employed in it And those also who receive the Sacraments from their Ministery do tho truly yet fruitlesly receive them I mean so many as by their obstinacy or ignorance culpable are guilty of the same Heresy or Schisme because these do not receive with the Sacrament gratiam sanctificationis or charitatem or jus ad regnum caelorum thro such their sin without which Charity any other fruition of the Sacrament is nothing worth Of which thus St. Austine De Baptis 7. l. 52. c. against the Donatists concerning their Priests giving and others receiving the Sacrament of Baptisme from them Habent potestatem dandi baptismum quamquam inutiliter habeant accipitur ab eis etiam cum inutile est accipientibus quod ut fiat utile ab haeresi vel schismate recedendum est 54. c. Infructuose atque inutiliter tradunt baptismum tales talibus in eo quod regnum Dei non possidebunt Haereticis correctis baptisma non incipit adesse quod deerat sed prodesse quod inerat And thus the Schools Haereticus i. e. manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisus excommunicatus c. non amittit potestatem conferendi Sacramentum sed licentiam utendi hâc potestate ideo quidem confert sed tamen peccat conferendo similiter ille qui ab eo accipit Sacramentum sic non percipit rem Sacramenti i e. gratiam sanctificationis nisi forte per ignorantiam excusetur Si sunt manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisi ex hoc ipso quod aliquis accipit Sacramenta ab eis peccat per hoc impeditur ne effectum Sacramenti consequatur Thus Aquinas p. 3.64 q 9.a. And then what great difference in the giver of such Sacraments not to have true Orders and not to have the power to use them Or in the receiver of the Sacraments not to have true Sacracraments and not to be benefited by them Excepting only such who living in such a separate Society are by their invincible ignorance excused from fault to whom it is granted that such Sacraments are effectual When they return to the unity of the Church indeed then his true Orders formerly received become to the one usable and the true Sacraments formerly received to the other profitable But this is in effect all one as if then the one first de novo received Orders § 193 3. and the other the Sacraments Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Câ—â—â—â— 3. But again tho I do not here state the question Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops Yet their Introduction and Ordination if valid seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful Because they came many of them into the places of others unjustly expelled 2. Because neither the major part nor any save one of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination See Thes 3. §. 6.7 which consent is a thing most necessary for preservation of the Church both in true Doctrine and in Unity Of which you have heard but now Mr. Thorndike's Testimony Who in the same place applying his Doctrine to this very fact goeth on thus Now it is manifest that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that rule wherein the unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reformation had been supported in that power which by the premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass 3. Because to prevent all division and faction as likewise to
just Authority of Queen Mary's Clergy Reply to α notwithstanding what hath been objected you must First 1. take notice That the Ejection of Bishops in Queen Mary's days was not the First but Second Ejection the first being made in King Edward's time when Gardiner Bonner Tonstal Day Heath Vesy That the Bishops in K Edward's days were not lawfully ejected and probably some other Bishops were removed from their Sees for I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbring the Change of Clergy under King Edward as he doth that under Queen Mary yet something may be conjectured from those general words of his p. 1180 For the most part the Bishops were changed and the dumb Prelate compelled to give place to others that would Preach Secondly That if the Ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was not lawful so many of the Bishops as were then ejected were by Queen Mary justly restored and those who were introduced into their places justly excluded Thirdly That to prove the Ejection of those Bishops under King Edward lawful it must be done both by a lawful Authority and for a lawful Cause Fourthly But that in both these respects their Ejection if the Principles formerly laid in this Discourse stand good appears not just § 55 For 1. First these Bishops being questioned about matters Ecclesiastical and Spiritual 1. Neither for the Judge their Judges were the Kings Privy Council or his Commissioners part Clergy part Laity as the King pleased to nominate them contrary to Third Thesis Amongst whom tho the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was one yet he was so not for his Canonical Superiority in the Church but from the Authority he jointly with the rest received from the King when the former Statutes concerning the Tryal of Hereticks by the Clergy See Fox p. 1237 and p 1202. had been first abrogated See before § 39 whereas the Clergy only are the lawful Judges of these matters namely to declare what is done contrary to the Laws of God and of the Church and to depose from the exercise of their Office the persons found faulty therein See Thesis Third § 56 Secondly The Causes Ecclesiastical urged against them for which they were removed from their Bishopricks were these 2. Nor for the Cause their non-acknowledgment of such a large extended Power of the Kings Supremacy as he then claimed and exercised in Ecclesiastical matters their non-conformity to the Kings Injunctions confirmed if you will with the consent of the National Synod of the Clergy in Spiritual matters And amongst these especially their not relinquishing the usage of the former Church Liturgies and Forms of Divine Service and particularly the Canon of the Mass which had been a Service approved by the general Practice of the Church Catholick for near a 1000 Years in which were now said to be many Errors See Church Gâ—v 4. 〈◊〉 §. 39. for which it might not be lawfully used their not using and conforming to the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments the new Form of Consecration and Ordination of Priests and many other clear Innovations against the former not only Ecclesiastical Constitutions or External Rites and Ceremonies which it was affirmed in one of the Questions disputed on in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth that every particular Church hath Authority to take away and change but also Ecclesiastical Doctrines established by Synods superiour to that of this Nation as hath been shewed in the Fourth Part of Church Govern A Catalogue of which Doctrines and Canons I have set down before § 45 having taken them out of the Three Copies of Articles proposed to the then Bishop of Winchester See Fox p. 1234 1235. to be subscribed Now such Canons whether concerning matters of Doctrine or of Ecclesiastical Constitution cannot be lawfully abrogated neither by the King See Thesis 1 2.7 8 nor by the National Synods of this Church See Thesis 4.8 and therefore the Ejection of those Bishops in Edward the Sixth's days for not obeying the King I add or the National Synod had there been any such before their Ejection in breaking such Canons was unjust and therefore they justly by Queen Mary restored and the others that were found in their places justly dispossessed Fifthly As for the rest of King Edward's Bishops who besides those Bishops that possessed these non-vacant Sees were ejected in Queen Mary's days § 57 5. That the Bishops deprived in Qu. Mary's days were lawfully ejected their Ejection contrary to the other will be justifiable if done for a lawful Cause and by a lawful Judge 1. First then the Causes of their Ejection were these chiefly § 58 First For their being Married which many if not all the Ejected were Cranmer 1. Bâ—th as to the Cause Holgate the Arch-Bishop of York Coverdale Scory Barlow Hooper Farrar Harley Bird Bush and some of them after having taken Monastick Vows as Holgate Coverdale Barlow as appears in Fox and Godwin contrary to the Canons of the Church both Western and Eastern as to those that marry after having received Holy Orders both Modern and Ancient even before the Council of Nice as is shewed at large in the Discourse of Celibacy § 18 and contrary to the Provincial Canons of the Church of England See Fox p. 1051 and 177 granting Celibacy of the Clergy to have been established here for a Law by a National Synod in the time of Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about An. Dom. 1080 The Penalty of transgressing which Canons was Deposition from their Office See Conc. Constant in Trullo less strict in this matter than the Western Church Can. 6 Si quis post sui ordinationem conjugium contrahere ausus fuerit deponatur See the same in Concil Neocaesar before that of Nice Can. 1. Conc Elibert 33. c. Affrican Can. 37. And see the same in the Canon of Anselme that all Priests that keep Women shall be deprived of their Churches and all Ecclesiastical Benefices § 59 Secondly For their not acknowledging any Supremacy at all of the Roman Patriarch 2 more than of any other Forreign Bishop over the Clergy of England contrary to the former Canons of many lawful Superior Councils as is shewed in Church Gov. 1. Part. § 53. and also contrary to the former Provincial ones of the English Church And for their placing such an Ecclesiastical Supremacy in the Prince as to use all Jurisdiction to reform Heresy constitute or reverse Ecclesiastical Laws in the manner before expressed Which Supremacy in the Church since some body in each Prince's Dominion where Christians are ever had here on Earth under Christ I say ever not only after that Princes became Christian but before Arch-Bishop Cranmer rather than that he would acknowledge it at any time to have lain in the Church said that before the first Christian Emperors time it resided in the Heathen Princes
190 NOW instead of these Catholick Bishops expelled being all that then sate Concerning the defects of the Qu. Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days save only Anthony Bishop of Landaff whom Cambden calls the Calamity of his See and who I think can be much challenged by no side in Henry the Eighth's time in Edward the Sixth's in Queen Mary's in Queen Elizabeth's still acquiescing for his Religion on the Princes direction the Queen had onely six others surviving since King Edward's time out of whom to raise her new Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Scory Bishop of Chicester Coverdale of Excester Barlow of Bath two Suffragan Bishops of Bedford and Thetford and one Bale Bishop of Ossery in Ireland amongst whom was no Metropolitan and of whom but one was consecrated in Henry the Eighth's days the other five in King Edward â—s whose times were full of uncanonical Proceedings and liable to several exceptions Again two of which Bishops Scory and Coverdale in King Edward's time came as is said into Bishopricks not void Besides that on another account they as also Barlow were lawfully ejected in Queen Mary's days as being marryed persons two of them Barlow and Coverdale doing this contrary to the Canons both as Priests and as Religious The later of whom also going beyond-Sea in Q. Mary's days there turned Puritan as they are called and in the troubles of Frankford was one of the Opposers of the Common-Prayer-Book of England and after his return See Bishop Bramhal 's Consecrat of Protestant Bishops jâ—stified â—ollinsheâ—d p. 1309. 26. Heâ— 8.14 c. 1 2. Mar. 8. c. at the Consecration of Arch-Bishop Parker refused to wear an Episcopal habit as is found upon Record nor would resume his Bishoprick of Excester but to his dying day lived a private Preacher in London William Allen in the second year of Queen Elizabeth being made Bishop of Excester in his stead As for the Suffragan Bishops as they were in a way and manner differing from former times first set up by King Henry so were they put down again by Qu. Mary and quite laid aside under Queen Elizabeth § 191 This for the reformed Bishops that are said to remain from King Edward's days Concernâ—â—g the defect of the nâ—w Bishop Oâ—dained in Qu. Elâ—zâ—beth'â— days now touching the new ones who were made by Queen Elizabeth I think not fit to trouble my Reader here with an exact discussion of the validity of their Orders by reason of defects either in the Ordainers or the Ordained since such a discourse for the most part Scholastick disputing of the Character Matter Form Intention c. essentially required for the conferring of this Sacrament may better come out in a Treatise a part then interrupt this Historical Narration Concerning these new Bishops and Prieststhen I will briefly only observe two or three things whereof the first shall be the judgment and esteem the Catholick Church has made of these and the like Orders the second that tho these Orders be supposed valid yet were they certainly unlawful and against the Canons and moreover unprofitable yea noxious to those who conferred and received them As to the first sect 192. 1. the new Ordination grew so far suspected as deficient to Queen Mary that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one That touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders Fox p. 1295. after the new sort and fashion of Orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister Bishop Bramhal indeed urgeth this following passage out of Cardinal Pool's Dispensation to prove Consecrat of Protestant Bishops justified 3. c. p. 63. that King Edward's new Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Mary's days by Cardinal Pool by the Pope confirming his Acts and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England Ac omnes Ecclesiasticas saeculares ceu quorumvis Ordinum Regulares personas quae aliquas impetrationes dispensationes concessiones gratias indulta â—â—m Ordines quaâ—â— Beneficia Ecclesiastica ceu alias Spirituales matâ—rias praetensâ supremitate authoritatis Ecclesiasticae Anglicanâ— licet nulliter de facto obtinuerint ad cor reversae peâ—â—onae ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint in suis Ordinibus Beneficiis per nos ipsos ceu a nobis ad id deputatos misericorditer recipiemus prout multae receptae fuerunt secumque super his opportune in Domino dispensabimus From which words of the Cardinal the Bishop argueth That If King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations which was required by the Institution of Christ then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirm their respective Orders or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church Thus the Bishop But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument you may observe that the Cardinal very cautiously here First saith not dispensamus or recipimus in the present as he doth in every one of his other dispensings throughout the whole Instrument tho in matters uncanonical dispensamus relaxamus remittimus concedimus c. in the present Tense but here dispensabimus in the future And Secondly saith not singlely dispensabimus but recipiemus per nos ipsos seu deputatos which reception per nos seu deputatos was not necessary for a dispensation with a matter only uncanonical And Thirdly saith not recipiemus simply but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt referring to the manner of the reception which had been used formerly in this Queen's days which we find set down in the Queen's thirteenth Article viz. That such new ordained repairing to the Bishop and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders as they being before not ordered in very deed And this is the Reason why the Cardinal could not apply in this Instrument a present recipimus or dispensamus for these Ordines as he doth for other things tho here he ingageth to make good to every one such orders as they then bare the title of This is a sence of which the Cardinals words are very capable and seem also to favour and which accords well with the Histories of those times whereas that which the Bishop puts upon them makes them to contradict the publick actions and proceedings both before and after the passing of this act For that the Cardinal when Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Roman Bishops held not the Orders received by the new Form sufficiently valid quoad Characterem as it may be gathered from Queen Mary's thirteenth Article forecited and first considered no doubt by her Bishops so it is clear from the Bishop of Gloucester the Popes Legate his degrading Ridley
belonged to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction or as it is referred to Spiritual censures As it standeth in Spiritual censures it is the right of the Church and was practiced by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always ways understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen And by this power saith he c. 4 p. 39. without coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the World reduced to the obedience of Christ by this power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for Three Hundred years together But if it be inquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive power give strength to the Canons of the Church But then what if the Emperors being Christian should take upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith or should use their coactive power against the Canons of the Church Take the answer of another reformed Writer Mr. Thorndike Right of Church 4. c. p. 234. The power of the Church is so absolute saith he and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the Profession of that Faith or the exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with or even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that power which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity tho contrary to the Sovereigns commmands Thus Mr. Thorndike in Right of the Church 4. chap. And like things he saith in his Epilog of the Church of Engl. See there 1. l. 9. c. the Contents whereof touching this Subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the Interest of Secular power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it That the Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity thro Christendome as the Sovereign is of civil Peace thro his Dominions And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible And see 1. l. 20. c. p. 158. Where he saith That He who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict Temporal Penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this Temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i. e those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the Sin of Sacriledge in seizing into its own hands the powers which by Gods Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own Service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence to the doing of it i. e. joyned to the Secular power doing such Act. Now amongst the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these l. 1. c. 16. p. 116. The power of making Laws within themselves of Electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398 and of excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p 385 the power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the communion of Christians in the Service of God and the power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion the power of holding Assemblies of which he speaketh thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 54. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation Founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service of God notwithstanding any Secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike Discourse of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19. And thus Dr Fern of the power of Judicature belonging to the Clergy It is confessed saith he on both sides that the power of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend is of divine Institution and that this power must be exercised or administred in the Church by some either Bishops or Presbyters is also confessed to be of divine right Therefore surely no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his dominions the exercise of such Judicature nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's substitutes herein being denyed the assistance of the Civil power are to proceed without it To these I will add what Dr. Taylor hath delivered on the same Subject in Episcopacy asserted and this the rather because this Treatise was published by the Command of so understanding a Prince He after that p. 263. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdom is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any intrenchment on the Royalty hath these passages P. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all
them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordinations of inferiour Clergy to their superiour Rites Liturgies c. As for the rights of the Secular power he layeth down this Rule p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are All actions civil all publick violations of Justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Infliction of Censures by Excommunication or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory i. e as he saith before to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy or some other way abett the censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law employed for regiment and cure of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth it before p. 239 is the Kings And lastly p. 241. he saith that the Catholick Bishops in time of the Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exteriour Jurisdiction and Power i. e the Royal. See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal Schism Guarded p. 61. All which our Kings saith he assume to themselves is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it i. e of that regiment and p. 63 He comments thus on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see the Power is political the Sword is political all is political Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it And p. 92 he saith We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them without taking away I hope any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes And p. 119 We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them laws he means such Laws for observance of which Secular coaction might be used the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them the Princes grant or concession was needful Doth not this Bishop mean here that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings dominions and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority only that they can use no coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments in the execution of them without his But see below § 22. The Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation See more of this § 35. N. 2. And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith It is coercive and compulsory and corrobatory Power it is the application of the matter it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the external Court of the Church Why or under what pretence to prevent saith he the oppression of their Subjects and to provide for the tranquility of the Common wealth not therefore to examine what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to Gods word for this Princes are to learn from those Courts which belongs to Sovereign Princes Thus he Lastly see the Kings last Paper in the Isle of Wight p 3. where it is said That tho the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over mens persons or estates no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure Yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government so Christian men do still Princes and all they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons in receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining witnesses judging of crimes against Gods law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper enjoyning Penancies upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. Now I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Canons the same Church Discipline casting out of the Church or Excommunication c. they are and must be allowed still in Christian States being things which as Bishop Carleton saith Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done and these are means absolutely necessary Convening for the making of Canons Knowing the Fact for Excommunication therefore in case the Christian Prince will not call them they may assemble themselves when the Church's necessities require such Canons and when the Christian Secular Courts will not they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency but this in order to Church punishments only When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathenism i. e do these things without their leave against their prohibitions All the Plea that a Secular State subjecting it self to the Church can make for medling in such Spiritual affairs seems to be this that the Church shall not be troubled now as formerly to do all because the State with its more awing power will do something for it Which
Protestant Religion passed as an Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament when all the Bishops therein present opposed it See Camden's An. 1. Eliz. And 1. Eliz. 1. c.. § 13 The Seventh Thesis That Thesis 7th tho Secular Princes were allowed to have a decisive power in some matters of Faith such as are no way formerly determined which is contrary to the First and Second Thesis yet for such points as have been formerly determined on any side here since a National Synod may not define any such thing contrary to former superior Councils much less may any Secular person define any such things contrary to those Councils or also contrary to a National Synod § 14 The Eighth Thesis That Thesis 8th as touching Divine truths and matters of Faith spoken of hitherto so now for things of meer Ecclesiastical Constitution and not Divine Command Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any new Canons concerning the Government and Discipline of the Church contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former superior Councils nor reverse those formerly made by them at least so many of these as neither the Prince can shew some way prejudicial to his civil Government nor the National Synod can shew some way more prejudicial to their particular Church than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches See this Thesis proved in Chur. Gov. 2. Part. § 63. And 3. Part. § 13. n. 3. And § 27. n. 2. § 15 These Theses being set down whereby to judge of the Regularity of a Reformation let us now view the carriage thereof here in England in the time of Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and how far it hath deviated from them Touching which Reformation I would desire you to read together with these â—ay Observations what is related in defence thereof by Dr. Hammond Schism 7. c. Dr. Fern in Considerations touching the Reformed Church 2. and 9. Chap. And Dr. Heylin's Treatise called the Reformation of the Church of England Justified lest I may have related some things partially or omitted some things considerable in this matter And here §. 16. 1. Three Heads of this Discourse confining my Discourse to Three Heads I will first give you an account how the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's days were at the beginning induced to acknowledge the Kings Supremacy in Spiritual matters after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly and how far only at first they seem to have allowed it I say after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly Because some Supremacy namely this of assembling a Synod of the Clergy upon Temporal punishments in case of Disobedience by their Writs the ancient form of which see in Dr. Heylin p. 4 when any urgent occasions required as likewise of enjoyning to all their Subjects as well Clergy as others upon Temporal Penalties the observance of the Decrees and Constitutions of such Synods or of any other former lawful Councils such as the Clergy shall acknowledge to have been the Decrees thereof these Supremacies I say the Princes of this Land before Henry the Eighth had and exercised neither was any such Supremacy usurped or interrupted by the Pope Neither do the Roman Doctors deny such an external coactive Jurisdiction of Princes in Spiritual Affairs 1. as to bind their Clergy upon Temporal Mulcts to meet together in Council when the same Princes shall think it necessary the Ecclesiasticks being their Subjects as well as Christs Clergy and on this account bound to obey them as well as their Spiritual Governors on the other and there being often good cause of their assembling in order to the peace and welfare of the civil State committed to the Princes care because this dependeth much on the right Government of the Church committed to theirs Provided only that these Assemblies be so timed and disposed by the Prince as that the authority which our Saviour hath committed to the Church concerning the assembling of the same persons be no way disturbed thereby For doubtless when both at the same time cannot be done their Service to the Church is to be preferred before that to the State 2. as to bind their Subjects upon External and Temporal Mulcts and Punishments to observe the Laws and Determinations of the Church But First that the Governors of the Church have also power upon Ecclesiastical Censures to assemble a Synod of Clergy when there seems need tho the Prince oppose it this indeed those Doctors affirm And secondly whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Prince's coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of he Church this they bring in question But then as his last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors so it is opposed by others of them 2. We will consider what manner of Supremacy was afterward by little and little either challenged by the Prince or by the Clergy or Parliament given unto him as his right 3. And Thirdly how according to this their conceived right those Three Princes acted CHAP. II. The Inducement of the English Clergy to acknowledge a Regal Supremacy in Spirituals I. Head § 17 FOR the First Henry the Eighth whether because scrupulous in Conscience How the Engl. Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals occasioned by his Daughter Mary's being offered in Marriage first to the Emperor Charles the Fifth and then to Francis King of France and by both refused as is said upon this account because they doubted of the lawfulness of Henry ' s Marriage with her Mother or whether because much enamoured on another Lady Anne Bullen Daughter to the Treasurer of his Houshold and an Attendant on the Queen yet between whom and him it is said that the King was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7 c. never after repealed plainly declared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the Seventh Etiamsi illa tibi alià s secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis aut primo affinitatis gradu etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit do give some suspicion Had a great desire after Twenty years cohabitation to be divorced from Queen Katherine because having been formerly his Brother's Wife Cardinal Wolsey being made the Bishops Legate together with Cardinal Campegius for the hearing and determining this matter tho at first he much corresponded with the King's Inclinations having designed his Matching with the King of France his Sister as is thought from some Self-interests yet when
upon the Universities abroad was demanded by the Parliament from the Clergy at home because it was said that the Cardinal and some other chief amongst them were thro their falshood and dissimulation the cause of this Forreign Expence Which Summe they resolutely refusing to contribute the whole Clergy are sued by the King and condemned by the Kings Bench in a Premunire also for receiving and acknowledging the Cardinals Power Legantine exercised by him ignorantly or presumptuously without the Kings consent and allowance first obtained The Clergy thus become liable at the Kings pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons and confiscation of their Estates assemble themselves in the House of Convocation offer to pay for their Ransome the demanded 100000 l. § 20 But the King having now no hopes of obtaining a Licence for his Divorce from the Pope who at this time stood much in awe of the Emperor victorious in Italy and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine that the Popes Decrees might be of no force against him negociates also by his Agents with the Clergy whilst in these fears to give him the Title of Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters within his Dominions making account that this obtained he had the assent of his own Clergy at his beck for the nulling of his former Marriage Therefore in the drawing up of the Clergy's Petition to the King for release of the Premunire it was signified from the Court cujus consilii Cranmerus Cromwellus clam authores fuisse existimabantur saith the Author Antiq. Brittanic p. 325. that a Title should be prefixed wherein they should stile the King ecclesiae cleri Anglicani Protector supremum Caput or else the Petition would not be accepted To which with some difficulty they agreed so as qualifying it with this Clause Quantum per legem Christi licet But the King again excepting at this limitation as unworthy the Clergy who either did or ought to know and definitively instruct others what Christs Law did or did not allow at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted See Antiquit. Brittannic p. 326. Sed Regi saith that Author displicuit ancipitem dubiamque mitigationem moderationem verborum a cleri sui Synodo quae de Christi lege aut certa fuit aut certa esse debuit tam frigide proferri Itaque Cromwellum ad Synodum iterum mandans eam aut tolli voluit aut clerum incursas Sanctionum paenas pati Omnium igitur ex sententiis Rex sine ambiguitate ullâ ecclesiae Angliae supremum caput declaratus est But yet this was not done till after the Clergy who much alledged that the King or some of his Successors might upon this Title ruine the Church of England in their ordering Spiritual matters without or against the Clergy thereof had obtained a voluntary promise from him to this effect That he would never by vertue of that Grant assume to himself any more power over the Clergy than all others the Kings of England had assumed nor that he would do any thing without them in altering ordering or judging in any Spiritual matters See Bishop Fisher's Life published by Dr. Bayly And this was the first Act of the Clergy which being so understood as excluding all authority of the Western Patriarch over the Church of England and transferring such authority for the future to the King is contrary to the Fourth Thesis because some such authority was conferred on this Patriarch by Superior Councils And which Act was so passed by them that as Dr. Hammond acknowledged of Schism 7. c. it is easy to believe See Church Gov. 1. Part §. 4. and §. 20. that nothing but the apprehensions of dangers which hung over them by a Premunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it § 22 After the conceding of this Title of Supremacy to the King and exclusion of the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions and the voiding of all appeals made hence unto him and after the Kings Marriage to Anne Bullen also but before the publication thereof Cranmer being now chosen Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon the death of Warham a Favourer of the Queen Katherine's Cause Summons her to appear before him and some other Bishops and Commissioners and upon her neglect solemnly dissolveth the Kings former Marriage with her and divorceth him from her § 23 But the Kings ends thus obtained yet things rested not here And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it But whereas formerly till the Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth the Synods of the Clergy saith Dr. Heylin § 1. p 7. after called by the Kings Writ acted absolutely in their Convocations of their own authority the Kings or Parliaments assent or ratification neither concurring nor required and whereas by this sole authority which they had in themselves they made Canons declared Heresies convicted and censured persons suspected of Heresy c Now they having declared the King supream Head of the Church instead of the Pope the Western Patriarch it seemed reasonable therefore that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head And conducing much to this end as I learn from the forenamed Dr was a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons after the Ice was broken A. 1532. See Fullâ—rs Appeal of Injur'd Innocence Pa. 2. p. 65. In which saith he they desiring that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament and that their Acts and Constitutions should not bind their Subjects as before in their Goods and Possessions until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power they shewed themselves aggrieved that the Clergy of this Realm should act authoritatively and supreamly in the Convocation and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent An Answer unto which Remonstrance saith he was drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester and being allowed of by both Houses of Convocation was by them presented to the King But the King not satisfied with this Answer resolved to bring them to his bent and therefore on the Tenth of May sent a Paper to them by Dr. Foxe after Bishop of Hereford in which it was peremptorily required that no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted promulged or put in execution unless the Kings Highness do approve the same and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution c. Whereupon on the Fifteenth of the same Month they made their absolute submission So He. And thus the next step therefore of this Reformation was that the King so requiring it they bound themselves by a Synodical Act for the time to come not to assemble themselves at all without the Kings Writ and when assembled not to enact promulge or execute any Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or
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
pro suâ pietate efficere dignentur ut ea quae ad jurisdictionem nostram libertatem Ecclesiasticam pertinent sine quibus debitum nostri pastoralis officii curae animarum nobis commissae exercere non possumus nobis superiorum temporum injuriâ ablata restituantur ea nobis Ecclesiae perpetuò illaesa salva permaneant ut omnes leges quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem libertatem Ecclesiasticam tollunt seu quovis modo impediunt abrogentur ad honorem Dei c. Which Rights how welcome they were to them when now regained in Queen Mary's days we may guess from their former complaint in the beginning of King Edward's days where we see how much they grieved when they saw them lost Sanders 2. l. p. 244. adds also that at this time Singuli Episcopi uno tantum Landaffensi excepto peculiariter petierunt à sede Apostolicâ veniam prioris gravissimae culpae See before §. 47. confirmationem in suo cujusque Episcopatu Lastly in the same Statute it is concluded That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Ordinaries should be in the same State for process of Suits punishments of Errors and execution of Censures of the Church with knowledge of Causes belonging to the same and as large in these Points as the said Jurisdiction was in the Twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth § 51 After these Statutes see to the same purpose the Synod held presently after the Coronation of Queen Mary Aâ—d the Church Doctrine under King Edward condemned before the introduction of any new Bishops save only some of those that were ejected in King Edward's Reign In which Synod the Bishop of London presided the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury having been about a Month before by the Council committed to the Tower for Treason for which he was some Two Months after condemned but afterward pardoned by the Queen In this Synod Fox saith p. 1282. that the whole House of Convocation Fox p. 1698. except Six persons did immediately assent and subscribe to the natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar and Transubstantiation and to the renouncing of the Catechisme put forth in the latter time of King Edward in the name of the Clergy and of the new Book of Common-Prayer these things being proposed to them by the Prolocutor At which time saith he Mr. Philpot Arch-Deacon of Winchester was as it were astonied at the multitude of so many Learned Men as there were on purpose gathered together to maintain old Traditions rather than the Truth of Gods Holy Word After this Synod see in Fox p. 1294. §. 52. n 1. the Eighteen Articles sent by the Queen to the Bishops but these Articles such as only enjoyned them the observance of former Church Constitutions from which the late Innovations had disobediently deviated commanding them to see to the Observance in their Diocesses of the Church Canons used in the time of Henry the Eighth securing them herein from the incurring any danger from the Laws of the Realm see the 1. Act. The Second of which Articles requires them to omit in their Writs Regiâ authoritate fulcitus The Third not to require the Oath of the Queens Supremacy in their admission of any into Church Preferments The Fourth excludes Sacramentaries from all Ecclesiastical Functions the Synod held in October before having declared against them The Seventh excludes according to the former Church Canons all married Persons from Ecclesiastical Promotions The Ninth appointeth the Divorce of married Monks and other Religious Persons who had formerly taken the perpetual Vow of Continency and the rest are to renew some or other former order of the Church Lastly see the Retractation made by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days confessed by Mason de Minist §. 52. n. 2. 3. l. 4. c. Regnante Mariâ alia Episcopis mens alius animus fuit i e. concerning Supremacy To which all that he answers is this Eorum subsecuta inconstantia confessionis prioris soliditatem abolere non potuit Quamvis sententias revocarunt suis tamen ipsorum argumentis non satisfecerunt But however that he will not grant the Kings Supremacy I mean in such a sense as it was then maintained to have been confuted by the Bishops reasoning yet he grants it to have been revoked so much as in them lay by their Authority § 53 The only thing which can here be questioned is whether this Clergy in Queen Mary's days That Queen Mary's Clergy was a lawful Clergy who in their following Synods abrogated the Acts and Concessions of the Clergy's former Synods in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's days were a lawful Clergy Which if they be now note that they will also be so in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days when also they opposed her Reformation Now it is questioned whether they were a lawful Clergy α α because many of King Edward's Bishops were in the beginning of this Queenâ—s Reign ejected β β and some also burnt for Hereticks and others put into their places γ γ whilst some of them were living and so those Sees not vacant δ and δ that without the consent of the Metropolitan who for the three first Years of Queen Mary was Cranmer without which Metropolitan's consent the Ordination of any Bishop in his Province was unlawful See Can. Nicen. 4. Can. Apostol 35. Now these Bishops are numbred by Fox to have been then ejected Pag. 1289. Cranmer from Canterbury Holgate from York Ridley from London Poynet from Winchester Hooper from Worcester he might have said from Glocester too for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the Sixth's time held both these Sees together in Commendam and for Worcester See Godw. Annal. An. Dom. 1555. Latimer then living had been Bishop thereof in King Henry 's days out of which for Non-conformity to the Six Articles he was ejected or for fear resigned it and was imprisoned in the Tower till King Edward 's time yet for what reason I know not could never then be restored to his Bishoprick Barlow from Bathe Harley from Hereford Taylor from Lincoln but this was by death not by the Queen as appears in Fox p. 1282. Ferrars from St. Davids Coverdale from Excester Scory from Chichester Besides these I find two more mentioned by Mason de Minist p. 248. Bush from Bristol and Bird from Chester Of which Bishops Mr. Fox saith p. 1280 Five were put out that the former Possessors of those Bishopricks might be restored Bonner to London Gardiner to Winchester Day to Chichester Heath to Worcester but Heath was afterward translated to York in Holgates room and Pate to Worcester in Hoopers room Vesy to Excester Besides which Tonstal was restored to Durham a Bishoprick which after Tonstal's Imprisonment was first kept void in King Edward's days and at last by Act of Parliament dissolved to increase the Kings Revenue § 54 Now in Vindication of the
we will say that the English only are in such faults incurable Neither can it be pleaded That such Lands are given to pious uses with such a tacit condition That when abused they may be recalled so long as these abuses are some other way remediable for else what thing is there dedicated to Gods Service which some Possessors do not at some time abuse But if it be said that the abuse and fault lies chiefly in the very Institution and Laws themselves of such Foundations Yet are these Laws also capable of being rectified and reformed so as God may be holily served in such a Monastick life as the Protestants themselves say he was in the Primitive times But if the Monastick Laws here were so corrupt how come the very same Laws abroad not to produce the same fruit in Nations said to be more inclined to such Vices How come those Houses there to this day to be not only tolerated but reverenced Or how happened under the same Laws here but three or four Years before in the great Monasteries Religion Thanks be to God to be right well kept and observed Stat. 27. Hen. 8.28 c. But suppose the King had questioned the lawfulness of these Institutions yet was he no competent Judge thereof it being a Theological Controversy and decided on the other side by the lawful judge thereof in several Superior Councils as is shewed in Discourse of Celibacy But indeed that which leaves the King the more destitute of any Apology in this kind is that whereas the chief fault charged upon these cloistered People was Incontinency the King whilst he took away these Orders did justify this Vow at least of perpetual Chastity to be a Vow lawful and by every one observable as you may see in the fourth of the six Famous Articles and still did prohibit all such Persons as had taken this Vow when in Monasteries from marrying afterward when they were ejected condemning the Transgressors hereof to suffer death The Words of that fourth Article are these That the Vows of Chastity or Widow-hood by man or woman made to God advisedly i. e. as I suppose deliberately or if you will with the approbation of our Spiritual Father ought to be observed by the Law of God and that it exempteth them from other liberties of Christian People which without that Vow they might enjoy The Penalty of which Article was That if any after a Vow advisedly made did marry in so doing he should be adjudged as a Felon and lose both Life and forfeit Goods without any benefit of Clergy See Fox p. 1037. Now if any can make this Vow advisedly I see not how we can say that the Monks do not so unless you will say That any Breach of a Vow argues it not to have been formerly made with advice but then why are these Religious expresly restrained afterward from Marrying Stat. 31. Hen. 8.6 c. where also advisedly seems to be interpreted the vowing after One and Twenty Years old uncompelled As for the falsification of Miracles to discover and publish the Cheat is sufficient to cure the present Fault and to prevent the like and when the Images were taken away the Houses needed not to be pulled down § 96 And as unexcusable seems the King to be in taking away Chaunteries c given for the relief of the faithful deceased with some Imperfections by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and annual Alms and Prayers offered to God for them whilst he allowed a benefit in these things and himself left the like Pensions and ordered that the same things of which he had deprived others deceased should be done for himself when deceased as you may see at large in his Will transcribed by Mr. Fuller And therefore whereas Edward the Sixth had these things given him again by Parliament because Henry the Eighth dyed not long after the Donation upon this reason because the Opinions of Purgatory and Masses satisfactory to be done for them that be departed were vain and superstitious Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14 c. Yet so it was that other causes and other grievances than these were glad to be invented to make way for King Henry to lay hands on them Stat. 37. Hen. 8.4 c. § 97 Fourthly 4. If it be said that the Religious themselv voluntarily resigned these Possessions into the King's hands See Stat. 31. Hen. 8.13 c. Yet was this Act of their's supposed never so free from Compulsion invalid because they could not give away for ever what they had Title to only for term of Life neither yet could they alienate them for their lives from that use to which they were dedicated without committing Sacriledge § 98 Fifthly Lastly That which is said 5. of an excessive number of them in this Nation if it be a just Apology for taking away some the Supernumerary yet will it be none for taking away all the rest And that which follows concerning their averseness to the King's Reformations is granted and shews indeed that the demolishing of them was to good purpose for attaining the Kings ends but it shews not that the demolishing therefore of them is lawful unless first such ends be justifiable and secondly cannot otherwise be compassed And thus much of the Kings destroying Monasteries § 99 By vertue of such a Supremacy by which he was conceived to have Power to dispense with any In the dispeasing with the former Church Canous conMarriages Fasts Holy-days c. if only humane tho Ecclesiastical Constitution See Stat. 25. Hen. 8.21 recited before § 27. He made Orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage against the former Ecclesiastical Canons See Stat. 32. Hen. 8.38 c. where it is said By this Act we i. e. the King and Parliament do declare all persons to be lawful that be not prohibited by Gods Law to marry Of which Licence saith Fuller Chur. Hist 5. l. p. 236. the King himself had the first fruits in marrying Katherine Howard Cosen-German to Anne Bullen his second Wife And you may find in the Preface of the same Act this urged also as a motive of casting off the Pope's usurped Power in such matters That King Henry was otherwise by Learning taught than his Predecessors in times past long time have been For King Henry was designed by his Father for a Church-man and during the life of his Elder Brother was educated in Learning and not unstudied in School Divinity Lord Herbert's Hist p. 2. Therefore in the first Articles of Religion which he put forth 1536 which were devised by the King himself and so recommended to the Convocation house by Cromwel part of which House saith Lord Herb. p. 405 leaned to the Lutheran Doctrine and Rites he took pains to peruse and moderate their Arguments on either side adding Animadversions with his own hand as may be seen in the Records And in the second Articles of Religion called a Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People published 1543. he carefully perused them saith
Articuli de quibus in Synodo London An. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos alios eruditos viros convenerat Regia authoritate editi In the thirty sixth of which Articles is also ratified the second corrected Form of Common-Prayer and the new Form of Ordination in these words Liber qui nuperrimè authoritate Regis Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est continens modum formam orandi Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ similiter libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum Ecclesiae quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt c. Atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris maxime a Ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum gratiarum actione accipiendi approbandi posteritati commendandi sunt λ λ And also for the first new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments it must be granted that in the second year and second Parliament of the Kings Reign the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation gave their approbation and consent thereto as appears both by the Kings message to the Rebels of Cornwal where it is said That what-ever was contained in the new Common-Prayer-Book c. was by Parliament established by the whole Clergy agreed by the Bishops of the Realm devised Fox p. 1189 and by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner where it is said yet more fully That after great and serious debating and long conference of the Bishops and other grave and well learned men in the holy Scriptures one uniform Order of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments hath been and is most Godly set forth not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament and of all other the learned men of this our Realm in their Synods and Convocations Provincial Fox p. 1186. And see much-what the same said in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter Fox p. 1212. 6. ν That such consent and such Constitutions of the Clergy of this Realm being not to be denied at least it will follow that the Reformation as touching the Common-Prayer-Book from the second year of his Reign and as touching the other Articles of Religion from the fifth was regular and canonical as being the act of the Clergy § 111 Thus have I here put you together the ordinary defence excepting the ultimum refugium The Reply thereto That Princes may reform in matters of Religion and of Faith without and against the major part of their Clergy of which hereafter which is made for the regularity of Edward the Sixth's Reformation To which now consider with me what it seemeth may reasonably be replyed tho some things cannot be so fully cleared till I have given you the rest of the Narration of this Kings Proceedings to which therefore I must refer you for them Reply to α To α then I answer That the Arch-Bishop acted not in the setting forth of these Injunctions as the Metropolitan but as one of the Sixteen Councellors whom Henry the Eighth nominated for the Government of his Son and in the same manner as he would have acted had he been Bishop of Asaph or Bangor Neither are the Injunctions grounded at all upon the Metropolitan's assent but on the Kings Supremacy nor do they make any mention of him or his authority but only of the Council in general and of their advice as you may see in what is before related § 108. Neither were those Canons being of humane constitution only conceived either by King Council or this Arch-Bishop to be of any force under this Regal Supremacy But secondly Suppose them in force and these Injunctions published by the Metropolitan's authority yet is not such authority made valid in such things when single without the concurrence of his Bishops by any such Canon For the very same Canon that saith Nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant Episcopi c. saith also Nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum Paraeciis Sic enim unanimitas erit See Can. Apost 35. Thirdly lastly every thing set forth by the advice of this Council is not necessarily so by the Arch-Bishops advice or vote because he is one of the Council For here the vote of the major part who were all Lay-men save himself and one Dr. Wotton if Bishop Tonstal's vote was cast out tho it were contrary to his vote bears the name of the whole § 112 To β. To β. That the advice of many Bishops was used in many of the Kings Injunctions unless in that touching the new Form of Common-Prayer is not evident that the advice of some Bishops was used in all is credible but those such as were presumed to be of the same inclinations with the King and Council as whatsoever colour the State is of it cannot want some Clergy of the same complexion For Example Cranmer and Ridley now called to consutation but Gardiner Tonstal Bonner Heath c. shut out and in Queen Mary's days contra That the advice of many Bishops used is not sufficient for to impose Laws on the rest where all have a decisive vote and where the legislative power lies in the major part viz. in a Synod to prevent Innovations by such Prelates as are singular in their opinions § 113 To γ. That King Edward claimed by his Supremacy according to the power which To γ. as I have shewed above § 39. c. was judged then to belong to it the giving of Laws to his Clergy not only for rectifying their practice but Doctrines only using the assistance of such Divines or other learned men as he thought fit to single out for this purpose as you may see In his prescribing the Doctrine of the Homilies unto them and also Before §. 108. In his injoyning them that whatsoever else should come from him they should see and cause it faithfully to be observed In his silencing the Ministery till something were drawn up by certain Bishops and other learned men congregated by his authority that should put an end to all controversies in Religion before § 109 In the stile of his Proclamation before the order of the Communion where he saith We would not have our Subjects so much to mislike our judgment as tho we could not discern what was to be done c. God be praised we know both what by his word is meet to be redressed and have an earnest mind by the advice of whom of our most dear Uncle and other of our privy Council with all diligence to set forth the same and In the last Articles to the Bishop of Winchester drawn up saith the Kings Diary by Bishop Ridley Pullâ—r 8. l. and Secretary Sir W. Peters which required his Subscription to several points of
where they could be secure of no breach in greater matters § 119 To η. Where concerniâ—g the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations To η. That the words urged out of the charge against Winchester prove not the Clergy's reception of or submission to all the Kings Injunctions touching the Reformation but only to the first Injunctions That whether they be extended to the first or to all they must be understood in some such sense as this That at that time when this charge against Winchester was drawn there were as yet none other known to the Council that did by open Protestation and Letters as it follows in that charge shew a wilful disobedience thereto c. Or else the verity of them will not consist with the story of those times which often signify a great opposition and averseness in many of the Clergy besides Winchester to the Kings proceedings in the alteration of Religion so far as that many were silenced suspended imprisoned ejected out of their Spiritual Preferments for this cause § 120 For evidencing which see first in Fox p. 1192. Bishop Bonner's protestation concerning these first Injunctions and Homilies when they were tendered unto him by the Commissioners which protestation was so far from being interpreted an obedient reception or reverent observance of them that for it he was sent to the Fleet. And what was done by Gardiner and Bonner leading Bishops that it was done also by many others I pray you review Mr. Fox's words before recited § 107 That for the most part the Bishops of Churches and Diocesses were changed which you may compare with what is said before § 107. of the many new Bishops made by King Edward That Learned Men were sent for out of forreign Countries surely not because the Leaders of the Universities were not so well studied see their Disputations but because not so conformable to the new prescriptions That of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward some to another where he names Bonner Gardiner Tonstal but might have mentioned also Heath Day Vesy that we know of And to the same purpose much-what speaketh Godwin p. 223. A. D. 1548 who after having commended Day and Tonstal for very learned Pre lates saith That the drift of the punishments of such men when in Henry's time they were accounted the chief Lights of our Church he conceives to have been that the rest of that Order might by their Example be admonished without dissimulation either to resign their Bishopricks to others that were thought by the present times more worthy or be induced by this terror to conform themselves to the present Reformation of the Church according to the prescript of the Laws in that behalf lately enacted i. e by Parliament Thus he But that the imprisonment of these or of some other Clergy as also that the dissent of many others to the Kings Injunctions who were not as yet imprisoned for it preceded the confirmation of these Injunctions by any Act of Parliament or Convocation appears from the very Act it self 2. Edw. 6.1 c. Where the Parliament desires of the King That all persons that have offended in the Premises i. e in refusing the Form of Common-Prayer or at least of the Mass Fox p. 1184 imposed by the King before this Act other than such person or persons as now be and remain saith the Act in the ward of the Tower of London or in the Fleet may be pardoned thereof Some Clergy therefore were imprisoned for this cause before this Act and more also had offended in this matter than those who were imprisoned whose pardon here was begged by the Parliament § 121 Which reluctance of the Clergy may be seen also in what Mr. Fox relateth p. 1184 who after he hath first told us how a new Form of Communion was agreed on by certain learned men appointed by the King which Form you must know was not allowed or seen by the first Parliament of King Edward which Parliament appointed Communion in both kinds indeed but this might have been observed without altering or adding one Syllable to the Mass and enjoined by the Council to be duly executed both by the Bishops and their subordinate Clergy thus complains Nevertheless saith he as at no time any thing can be so well done of the godly but that the wicked will find some means to deface the same so likewise at this present thro the perverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness of many inferiour Priests and Ministers of Cathedral and other Churches of this Realm there did arise a marvellous Schism and variety of fashions in celebrating the Common Service and administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church For some zealously allowing the Kings proceedings did gladly follow the order thereof and others though not so willingly admitting them did yet dissemblingly and patchingly use some part of them but many carelesly contemning all would still exercise their old wonted Popery i. e in other language would still retain the former solemn Church Service Thus He. Now this variety of fashions only mentioned by Fox if you desire more particularly to know we find a more punctual relation thereof in Parsons 3. Convers of England 2. Part 12. Chapter What a Babylonical confusion saith he in the two first years of the Kings Reign ensued upon these innovations in all Churches is wonderful to recount For some Priests said the Latine Mass some the English Communion some both some neither some half of the one half of the other This was very ordinary to say the Introitus Confiteor in English and then the Collects and some other parts in Latine after that again the Epistles and Gospels in English and then the Canon of the Mass in Latine and lastly the Benediction and last Gospel in English But that which was of more importance and impiety some did consecrate Bread and Wine others did not but would tell the people before-hand That they would not consecrate but restore them their Bread and Wine back again as they received it from them only adding to it the Church's benediction And those that did consecrate did consecrate in divers forms some aloud some in secret some in one form of words some in another And after Consecration some held up the Host to be adored after the old fashion and some did not and of those that were present some did kneel down and adore others did shut their eyes others turn away their faces others run out of the Church crving Idolatry Hitherto Parsons View also Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform p. 63.74 concerning this-matter Whereby we see how averse and unsatisfied divers of the Clergy were with the Kings alterations § 122 And this not only before his new Liturgy is said to be confirmed by Act of Parliament and Convocation but after also For afterward we find the King and his Council in their Letter to the Bishop of London Fox p. 1186. complaining That it
and form save that he shall bless and consecrate the biggest Chalice or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of Wine with some water put unto it and that day not drink it up all himself but taking one only sup or draught leave the rest upon the Altar covered and thus exhort the people Dearly beloved c. Thus the Rubrick And this Form as Mr. Fox goes on exhabited unto the King was by his Majesty's Council particularly sent to every Bishop of the Realm requiring and commanding them by their Letters on the Kings Majesty's behalf that they should forthwith have diligent respect to the due execution thereof c. In which Letter the motive urged by the Council why this new Form was drawn up and imposed is That the Statute of the former Parliament ordering that the Sacrament should be distributed unto the people in both kinds might be well executed in such sort as is agreeable with the word of God as if for the distribution of the Sacrament in both kinds there was any need of altering or superadding any thing to the Mass when as with that same Form of the Mass it was in the publick Communions for many Centuries only so distributed and when as that same Form of the Mass is urged by Protestants as contrary to communicating the people only in one kind but the true cause of altering it I shall shew you by and by Now this new Form was thus imposed by the King and his Council before allowed by any Synod of the Clergy or Act of Parliament which were procured afterward in the second Parliament of King Edward Meanwhile such alterations in King Edward's time about the Doctrine and the Administration of this Sacrament as they were uncanonical so they were in this respect also very hurtful in that they occasioned in the ignorant especially much profaneness and irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament in those days as you may partly also gather from an Act 1. Edw. 6.1 c. made against such irreverent speaking against it For whereas the Sacrament was according to ancient custome delivered to each Communicant in a small round Wafer hence they gave it the name of Round-Robin And because the parts thereof that were reserved to be carried to the sick were hanged up over the Altar in a Pix or Box they named it Jack in a Box and instead of the Sacrament of the Altar called it the Sacrament of the Halter See Heylin's Hist of Reform 49.63 Such profaneness followed the remedy of what they called Superstition § 145 Secondly 2. Of Ordination See 3 4. Edw. 6.10 c. Having likewise condemned amongst other superstitious Books the former Church-form of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops and Priests the King caused a new Form to be prescribed upon this pretence in the Act of Parliament That so concord and unity might be had within his Majesty's dominions in these Ordinations But could not this have been done without innovation by strictly confining all to the use of the former Church form or if these were various to some one of them Stat. 3 4. Edw. 6.12 c. Now for the compiling of this new Form the Parliament orders That such as by fix Prelates See before §. 42. and six others to be appointed by the King or by the major part of them should be devised for that purpose and set forth under the great Seal should by vertue of their Act without obtaining or requiring any ratification thereof from any Synod be lawfully used and none other any law or prescription to the contrary thereof notwithstanding In which new Form amongst other things which were in the former now cast out this is one to the great contradiction of all Antiquity The Bishops conferring on the ordained Presbyters potestatem offerendi sacrificium propriè dictum verè propitiatorium see in what sense understood and explained by the Church in Discourse of the Eucharist § 251. c Deo Missasque celcbrandi tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis Quod omnem superat impietatem saith Mason de Minist p. 242. 17. c. And this is another The Oath of Submission of the Ordained or Consecrated to the Supremacy of the Patriarch instead of which is prescribed another Oath to the Supremacy of the Temporal Prince From which Regal Supremacy also we find Cranmer after fifteen years governing the Province of Canterbury receiving at the coming in of a new Sovereign a new Licence of ordaining Bishops and Priests therein durante Beneplacito Regis The Form as Sanders p. 170. hath set it down runs thus Quandoquidem omnis jurisdicendi authoritas atque etiam jurisdictio omnimoda tam illa quae ecclesiastica dicitur quam seecularis a Regia petestate velut a supremo capite manta c. Ad ordinandum igitur quoscunque intra Diaecesim tuam Cantuariensem ad omnes etiam sacros Presbyteratus ordines promovendum per praesentes ad nostrum beneplacitum duraturos tibi damus potestatem And some such thing is intimated by Mr. Prin unbishoping of Timothy p. 80. I must inform our Bishops saith he for their Learning that all the Bishops in King Edward the Sixth's time had special clauses in their Letters Patents authorizing them to ordain Ministers and Deacons as Bishop Poynet's Scory's Coverdale's Patents 5. Edw. 6. pars 1. testify at large and there is no wonder in this if you recall to mind Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Answers to the Queries made concerning these matters recited before § 105. n. 3. Which Patents if they imply such a Supremacy Ecclesiastical in the Prince as that he may if he please prohibit any Ecclesiastical person at all from ordaining Ministers in his dominions are contrary to the first Thesis above § 2. But yet this new Ordinal was not so well purified from former Superstitions See in Fox p. 1366. the Kings and Earl of War wick's Letters but that some who were presented to Bishopricks were stumbled therewith and the Kings dispensation was obtained in order to the consecrating of Bishop Hooper for his not observing of some things therein and particularly for his not taking the new Oath either that of obedience to the Arch-Bishop or that of the Kings Supremacy which perhaps he lately seasoned abroad with Calvin's Doctrine See before §. 37 could not so easily digest § 146 Thirdly 3◠of Common Prayer Not long after the production of the new Form in administring the Communion in the second year of his Reign he caused it to be reviewed and also then to be drawn up a new Form of Common Prayer for Mattins and Evensong and the Administration of the other Sacraments of the Church if I may use the phrase of the Act 2. Edw. 6.1 c. which Form composed by seven Bishops and seven other learned men of the Clergy chosen by the King yet one of them Day Bishop of Chicester after it was done refused to subscribe it who was afterward also turned out of his
Bishoprick See Heylin's Hist of Reform p. 65. quoting the Register of Petworth was authorized by Act of Parliament and at the same time consented to as it seems by what is urged above § 110 by a Convocation of the Clergy of which see what is said §. 126 And the pretence of making this new Form in the Preface of that Act is this That whereas of long time there had been in the Realm divers Forms of Common Prayer the use of Sarum of York of Bangor and Lincolne and besides the same now of late much more divers and sundry Forms and Fashions have been used c to stay Innovation and Rites concerning the Premises his Highness being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his subjects in that behalf hath appointed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury c. having as well respect to the most pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture as to the usages in the Primitive Church to draw and make one convenient and meet order rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and Administration to be had and used in his Majesty's Realms Thus the Act. But to remedy these innovations or diversities of Forms how easy had it been to establish any one of the ancient Forms Or at least reasonable to retain in the new draught those things wherein all the former Church-Services agreed And not themselves to innovate for the hindering of innovations But the fact discovers the intention § 147 Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass For in this new draught was ejected and left out the Sacrifice of the Mass or the oblation to God of the Holy Eucharist as propitiatory or impetratory of any benefits to the living or to the dead contrary to the belife of former Church and Councils as is mentioned before § 118. And for this reason were the Altars in Churches commanded to be changed into Tables that the eating might be thought on but not the offering Whenas Hooper had preached before the King That so long as Altars remained both the ignorant people and the ignorant and evil-perswaded Priest would always dream of Sacrifice and besides the great men about the Court saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 95. had promised themselves no small hopes of profit by the dis-furnishing these Altars of the Hangings Palls Plate and other rich Utensils The leaving of one Chalice to every Church with a Cloth or covering for the Communion-Table being thought sufficient Upon the same excuse were the Chaunteries Free-Chappels c. seized on as chiefly erected for the relieving of the deceased with the offering of this Sacrifice and the Alms and Prayers accompanying it of which see before § 138. The benefit of which Sacrifice for the dead was yet a thing the more maintainable in those days because the new Form still retained this manner of praying for the dead Grant unto this thy Servant that the sins which he committed in this world be not imputed unto him but that he escaping the gates of Hell and pains of eternal darkness may ever dwell in the region of light with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the place where is no weeping sorrow nor heaviness c. See the Order for Burial Fol. 28. § 148 For the exclusion of this Sacrifice Where 1. Concerning the alterations in the first Common-Prayer Book if K. Edward's in relation to the Sac ifice of the Eucharist you may find in the new Communion see Communion Fol. 128. all those expressions in the former Liturgy that signify it diligently cancelled forbidding also the elevation of the Host after Consecration as these following In the Canon before Communicating Te supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata inprimis quae Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesiâ tuâ sanctâ Catholicâ c. And Memento Domine famulorum c pro quibus tibi offcrimus hoc sacrificium laudis pro redemptione animarum suarum pro spe salutis incolumitatis suae c. And Memores ejusdem Christi filii tui tam beatae passionis c. offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis Hostiam puram Hostiam sanctam Hostiam inmaculatam panem sanctum vit◠aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel sacrificium Patriarchae nostril Abrahae quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam Jube haec perferri per manus Sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu Divinae Majestatis tuae ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti gratiâ repleamur And that in Post-Communion Praesta ut sacrificium quod oculie tuae Majestatis indignus obtuli Tibi sit acceptabile omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli sit te miserante propitianile These Expressions I say are cancelled and instead of these the new Form makes an oblation to God not of the consecrated Gifts or Sacrament at least expresly but of our thanks and of our own persons and service But this Oblation in imitation of the former it brings in immediately after the Consecration and before Communicating whilst the conescrated Elements yet remain upon the Table This new Form I thought good to transcribe because perhaps you may not have the Book Wherefore O Lord and heavenly Father according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son we do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy Gifts the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make having in remembrance his blessed Passion c. where whether some of the Composers who were of different perswasions see before §. 127 128. retaining the former intentions under an only-varied expression might not extend these ambiguous words to an offering of the holy misteries to God the Father as a commemorative Sacrifice of that of his Son upon the Cross I cannot say but thus it goes on Rendring unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same Entirely desiring thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thansgiving Most humbly beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ We and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of his Passion And here we offer and present unto thee O Lord our selves our souls and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice unto Thee humbly beseeching thee that whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction the ancienter Form Ut quotquot
Pope did also assume unto her self the Stile and Title of Queen of England as Cosin and next Heir to Queen Mary deceased quartering the Arms thereof upon all her Plate and Escutcheons Only let me first mind you this concerning Queen Maries Reign that lyeth between That whatever the Reformation had built upon any Synodal vote under Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth was now revoked and demolished under Queen Mary by the like Synods of a legal Clergy as is shewed before § 52. The Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters was re-acknowledged by this National Synod now not due to the Civil but to the Ecclesiastical Chief Governor the Bishop of Rome the Patriarch of the West yet not challenged by him in so high a degree as these Princes used it The Six Articles established by Synod in Henry the Eighth's days as also the ancient Church Liturgy ancient Form of Ordination ancient way of Tryal of Hereticks ancient Canons c were now by the like Synodal power again restored and re-inforced See before § 48. So that the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth was to begin upon a new foundation without grounding any plea upon any Synodal Act or consent of the Clergy made in King Henry or King Edward s days either concerning the new Supremacy or the new Liturgy or the new 42 Articles of Religion c since all these were by the same Synodal authority in Queen Mary's days desclaimed Here seemeth no evasion If we accept the decrees of later Synods rather than of former then Queen Mary's Synods will void King Henry's and King Edward's But if of former Synods rather than of later then the Synods of Henry the Eighth and of former times for the Six Articles c. will void King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's too § 172 And here first concerning the course which Queen Elizabeth took in repairing the Reformation defaced by Queen Mary Dr. Heylin speaks thus of it in general Reform Justified p. 37. In Queen Elizabeth's time saith he before the new Bishops were well setled and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy She went that way to work in her Reformation which not only her two Predecessors but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Jewish State and many of the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times had done before her in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by God And to that end she published her Injunctions An. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. all tending unto the Reformation with the advice and counsel of the Metropolitan him that was first ordained so by her appointment and some other godly Prelates who were then about her by whom they were agreed on and subscribed unto before they were presented to her But when the times were better setled and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over she left Church work to the disposing of Church-men who by their place and calling were most proper for it and they being met in Convocation and thereto authorized as the Laws required did make and publish several Books of Canons c. Thus the Doctor The brief of which is That Queen Elizabeth did the Church-work at first her self without any Synodal authority of the Church-men as not being assured of their affection till she had setled new Church-men according to her mind and then she did Church-work by Church-men § 173 This testimony premised concerning her proceedings in general Hâ—r calling of a Syâ—od which declareth against the Râ—formation Now to mention some particulars which are of the most note In the beginning of her Reign the Queen together with a Parliament called also a Synod in which Bonner Bishop of London in the vacancy of the Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury was President and Dr. Harpsfield was Prolocutor for the inferiour Clergy But this Synod continued in the former resolutions made under Queen Mary and remained inflexible to the Queens inclinations and the Reformation nay declared against it The full relation of which Synod I will give you out of Mr. Fuller's History 9. l. p. 54. who copyed it out of Lib. Synod 1559. because tho somewhat long yet it is very remarkable The Convocation at this time saith he was very small and silent For as it is observed in nature when one twin is of an unusual strength and bigness the other born with him is weak and dwindleth away So here this Parliament being very active in matters of Religion the Convocation younger brother thereunto was little employed less regarded Yet in it in the lower House of Convocation were passed over certain Articles of Religion which they tendred to the Bishops that they might present them to the Parliament The Bishops likewise by their President Bishop Bonner presented them to the Lord Keeper Likewise in the tenth Session of this Convocation an account was given in by both the Vniversities in an Instrument under the hand of a publick Notary wherein they both did concur to the truth of the foresaid Articles the last only excepted § 174 The Articles together with their Preface are these which saith he we here both transcribe and translate copyed by me out of the Original considering they are the last in this kind that ever were represented in England by a legal Corporation in defence of the Popish Religion § 175 Reverendi in Christo Patres ac Domini Colendissimi Quoniam famâ publicâ referente ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit multa religionis christianae dogmata publico unanimi gentium christianarum consensu hactenus recepta probata atque ab Apostolis ad nos usque concorditer per manus deducta praesertim Articulos infra scriptos in dubium vocari Hinc est quod nos Cantuariensis Provinciae inferior secundarius Clerus in uno Deo sic disponente ac Seren Dominae nostrae Reginae Decani Capituli Cant. mandato Brevi Parliament ac monitione ecclesiasticâ solitâ declatatâ id exigente convenientes partium nostrarum esse existimavimus tum nostrae tum eorum quorum curae nobis committitur saluti omnibus quibus poterimus modis prospicere Quocirca majorum nostrorum exemplis commoti qui in similia saepè tempora inciderunt fidem quam in Articulis infra scriptis veram esse credimus ex animo profitemur ad Dei laudem honorem officiique aliarum nostrae curae commissarum animarum exonerationem praesentibus duximus publicè afferendam affirmantes sicut Deus nos in die Judicii adjuvet asserentes 1. Quod in Sacramento Altaris virtute Christi verbo suo a Sacerdote debitè prolato assistentis praesens est realiter sub speciebus Panis Vini naturale Corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Mariâ Item naturalis ejus Sanguis 2. Item Quod post Consecrationem non remanet substantia panis vini neque ulla alia substantia nisi substantia Dei Hominis 3. Item
the wiser sort resolved that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome lest they being Subjects should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince and take up the banner of Rebellion Thus Cambden Now the contention about the manner of disputing which Cambden omits was what side should speak last which the Bishops because of their dignity desired to do after having observed Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked But this the Queens Council would not yield to them the first agreement being pretended contrary and so that conference ceased After this Disputation followed the suppressing sect 179. n. 1. The Regâ—l Suâ—remancy and all that K. Edw. hâ—d done in the Refâ—rmâ—tioâ— now re-established by the Queen and Paâ—liament of the Mass of the Popes Supremacy of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigor by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy in all those spiritual Jurisdictions which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary and upon pretence that the Crown could not be supported with such honor as it ought to be if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembred from it all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary Besides which because there were many Impropriations and Tithes by dissolution of Religious Houses invested in the Crown the Queen kept several Bishopricks void till she had taken into her hands what Castles Mannors and Tenements she thought good returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes but this an extended instead of the other old rent Bishopricks being thus kept void also in following times one after another upon several occasions saith Dr. Heylin till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it See his History of Queen Elizabeth p. 120 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. c. sect 179. n. 2. Again Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer but altered first in some things by eight Learned men all of the reformed party and non-Bishops to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen In which review saith Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform Qu. Elizabeth p. 111. there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. see before § 160. The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it The Body of our Lord c. Take and eat lest saith that Author under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers Likewise the Rubrick about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground And to come up closer saith he to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queens Injunctions that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood as also the Altar in the Queens own Chappel was furnished with rich Plate two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124. that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus Musick retained in the Church Festivals observed c. Thus Dr. Heylin And some such thing likewise was observed if you will give me leave to digress a little by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion both concerning Real Presence For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words Since as the Holy Scriptures testify Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the world It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out and concerning Church Authority and Church Ceremonies For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days being taken with the Geneva-way were when they returned great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of Eâ—â—land and of Church-authority in general therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ' The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and authority in Controversies of Faith For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence Insomuch as when one of her Divines see Heylin's Hist of Queen Eliz. p. 124. had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complyed so far as to resort to the Mass see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist in answer to a Priest desiring her judgment therein are well known 'T was God the Word that spake it He took the Bread and brake it And what the Word did make it That I believe and take it She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies and great Opposer of the Puritans see before § 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist p. 144. c. several of whom tho in such a scarcity of Divines she preferred in the beginning of her Reign as Sampson to be Dean of Christ Church Whittington to be Dean of Durham Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge c Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her And when Alexander Nowel Dean of Pauls had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression and to return unto his Text. Heyl. Hist. p. 124. But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queens days in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad and by Peter Martyr and others here at home and that tho some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived
unto him and having their consent and direction in it may in case of intermission or corruption restore such practice to its primitive lustre tho he do it against the major part of his Clergy or Synod as you may see p. 83. 3. He intimates That if the Reformation be in such point of Doctrine as hath been before defined in a General Council or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced the King consulting with some of his learned Bishops may enjoyn it without or against a Synod 4. But he saith That if the Reformation be in such points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner the King only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted So he saith p. 85. That the King cannot determine Heresies From this by necessary consequence it follows That if any point of doctrine hath been determined by a former General Council I add or lawful superior Council the King neither against nor without I add nor with the major part of his Clergy can reform or establish the contrary of such doctrine § 207 Now to reflect op the Drs. Limitations Concerning the two last I leave it to your judgment whether in the instances made above the contrary to several doctrines determined by former lawful General or other superior Councils have not been established by our reforming Princes without or also against the major part of their Clergy And again whether other doctrines not determined by any former lawful Council yet have not thus also without any such consent been established by them Both which Dr. Heylin condemneth Again concerning all these limitations I ask when all or the major part of Clergy affirmeth that such things are not corruptions in manners nor abuses in Government that such practices are not primitive nor universal that such doctrines are not formerly so determined and none or a smaller part of the said Clergy saith the contrary How will Dr. Heylin here direct the Kings Supremacy Will he here allow him after hearing all to follow his own judgment Or that of the fewer against his Synod or the major part thereof It seems in some things he will not allow it See Limitation the fourth and it seemeth unreasonable to be allowed in any of the rest For why should not a Synod discern corruption in manners as well as he or some few Or why may not he mistake and miscall their reason passion or partiality But if the Prince follow the major part of his Clergy in their judgment of what are corruptions what are formerly defined c. then cannot the Prince be said or supposed to reform such corruptions c. against this major part whose judgment in this Reformation of them he followeth § 208 The last I shall propose to your considering is Dr. Fern Of Doctor Pern Exam. Cha. 9. c. 19. §. p. 290. who speaketh somewhat more particularly in this matter He first affirmeth indeed in behalf of the Clergy that the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline And That they have a coercive power in a Spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say as far as the power of the Keys put into their hands by Christ for Spiritual binding and loosing will reach And that this power is coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church I suppose therefore upon Christian Princes also if obstinately gain-saying And 20. § He quoteth 1. Eliz. 1. That the judging of Heresy is restrained for Heresies past to the Declaration of the first General Councils and for such as shall arise to the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation And § 15. he saith It is a mistake to think that the Prince by his supreme power in Spiritual things is made supreme Judge of Faith and decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Again Ibid. he affirmeth that the Prince's giving publick establishment to the doctrine defined by the Clergy and evidenced to him is not in order to our believing as the Romanists use fondly to reproach us in saying our belief follows the State but to our secure ind free profession and exercise of Religion For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe as Pastors of the Church are 1. Cor. 3.9 And § 21. That we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church who have commission to do it in order to our believing and must yield obedience to the establishment of the Sovereign either by doing and conforming thereunto or by suffering for not doing according thereunto And § 25. That it is the office of the Pastors of the Church to evidence what is truth and conformable to Scripture and that in order both to our and to the Prince's believing Again § 21. he affirmeth that the immediate and ordinary judgment of matters of Religion belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing but that a secondary judgment is necessary in the Sovereign for his establishing by Laws that which is evidenced to him upon the judgment and advice of the Pastors of the Church or as § 23. for his being satisfied that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the law of Christ before he use or apply his authority to the publick establishment of it and this upon a double reason the first of which is In respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss as the Kings of Israel and Judah were § 209 But then he saith these things further in behalf of the Supremacy of the Prince which seem to reduce the Clergy's power into a very narrow compass and to render it uneffective toward the Subjects of the Church unless thro the coacting of the Prince He saith then 1. That Princes are not bound to follow the directions of the Clergy any further than they are evidenced to them See 9. c. § 21. Princes are not meer Executioners of the determinations and decrees of the Church Pastors nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish as matter of Faith and Religion whatsoever they define and propound for such But they are to do their work so as it may by the demonstration of truth be evidenced to the Sovereign Power That Princes are not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy or of a Synod where they fear the Synod will not go aright 2. c. 8. § Reformation of Gods Worship saith he may be
by the Patriarchs Thus much concerning the English Reformations under the three Princes Henry the Eighth Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth what manner of Ecclesiastical Supremacy was conceded to or recognized in them what exercised by them Where it is evident that tho these Princes pretended only to translate upon themselves the Supremacy formerly used by the Patriarch not forgetting to seize on most of the profits thereof yet theirs was far from being restrained within the same bounds as the Patriarch's was For whether we review the pretended innovations introduced into the Church Catholick before or those introduced since the Council of Trent by the Patriarch's concurrence We cannot say of them that He without out or assisted only with some few of the Clergy imposed them upon the world by his single authority without or contrary to the votes of the major part of the Clergy as King Edward and Queen Elizabeth did Who had they called a Synod of their Clergy and then behaved themselves in it as Constantine in the Council of Nice i. e. left all in pure Spiritual matters to their disposal judge what would have been the issue But it seems by the proceedings forementioned in this Discourse that the Secular Supremacy took it to be the Prince's right to establish in their dominions with or without the major part of the Clergy which they were instructed might fall away from the truth a tenent the Patriarch owns not what they apprehended to be the Law of Christ upon evidence of Scripture i. e. to them so seeming by whomsoever manifested unto them From which apprehensions in single and unstudied persons very mutable and having no such fixedness as the body of the Church hath being tyed by so many subordinations to several degrees of Superiors newer and newer Reformations for ever do flow and multiply without end as we see at this day And so it is also that these Acts of Supremacy coming from the hands of the Temporal power whatever way they incline have much more strength and validity in case of opposition than those coming from the Spiritual this Sword not wounding to sense so deep as the other and therefore is such a Supremacy where Prince's judgments are liable to mistakes much the more dangerous § 215 All which ill-consequences the Protestant Princes of Germany who Several Protestants denying such a Supremacy du◠to Princes being in some respects subordinate to another could not so well settle this Supremacy on themselves in the dawning of the Reformation did well foresee and were as loth to acknowledge the Emperor Supreme as the Pope Nor would they ever allow of this Title assumed by Henry the Eighth out of a jealousy that Charles the Fifth should claim the same And for this reason it is thought that no Accord was made tho much attempted between them and this King See Lord Herbert's Hist p 378 and 448. The Protestants of Germany saith he would not allow the King's Supremacy lest they should infer an investing of the same authority in the Emperor whose absolute power they seemed to fear more than that of the Pope himself And this suspicion alienated secretly the mind of our King who saw that if he embraced their Reformation they would abridge his power i. e. regulate or alter the point of his Supremacy § 216 The same reluctance against such Regal Supremacy was in Calvin and other Reformers as I have shewed before See before §. 37. and hath remained still in the reformed Presbyterian Clergy of Scotland and in those Sects called Puritanical in England and elsewhere which is said to have rendred both Queen Elizabeth and King James much more averse from the Presbyterian Government and Discipline who discharging the authority of the Pope of Councils such as the Church hath had of Bishops yet have endeavoured to reserve the Supremacy as touching all Ecclesiastical Affairs to the Officers of their particular Churches as the power of calling and constituting their Assemblies at time and place as they think fit the making of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies the correcting and ordering all things pertaining to the Congregation tho without the Kings consent and against his will unless he be pleased to be included in the number of the Church Officers there to enjoy a single vote requiring the Civil Magistrate to be subject to this their power To which purpose are those Positions of theirs Seatch Discipline 2. l. 1. c. As the Ministers and others of the Ecclesiastical State are subject to the judgment and punishment of the Magistrate in external things if they offend so ought the Magistrates to be subject to the Kirk Spiritually and in Ecclesiastical Government And to submit themselves to the Discipline of the Kirk if they transgress in matter of Conscience and Religion All men as well Magistrates as Inferiors ought to be subject to the judgment of the National Assemblies of this Country in Ecclesiastical causes Scot. Disc 2. l. 12. c. without any re or appellation to any Judge Civil or Ecclesiastical within the Realm See Dr. Heylin's Reform Just p. 88 and Rogers on Art 37. p. 216. and 218. and the two Books of the Scottish Discipline To which may be added those passages of the English Presbyterian in their Confession of Faith An. Dom. 1647. cap. 30 and 31. which say That the Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church hath therein appointed a Government in the hand of Church-officers distinct from the Civil Magistrate And that if the Magistrates be open enemies to the Church the Ministers of Christ of themselves by vertue of their office may meet together in such Assemblies And there may Ministesrially determine Controversies of Faith set down rules for the better ordering of the publick worship of God and Government of his Church receive complaints and authoritatively determine the same Which decrees and determinations if consonant to the word are to be received and therefore may be divulged with reverence and submission for the power whereby they are made as this power being an Ordinance of God All this they affirm the Church-officers may do of themselves by vertue of their office if the Magistrate be an open enemy to the Church And all this they did King Charles's Supremacy giving no consent thereto but opposing it And then for the meaning of open enemy I have reason to suppose they will pronounce a Popish an Arrian any heretical Prince such as well tho perhaps not every way so much as an Heathen § 217 Lastly The same reluctance also was in those Bishops who first conceded such Supremacy to Henry the Eighth Who as at the fiest they swallowed the Oath of it not without some straining so afterward when by long experience they had seen such Church-laws issuing from it as they thought very grievous and dammageable to the Church and found uncontrollable by their power they very stoutly to the loss of their Bishopricks made resistance to the same Oath
therefore that would gain a Proselyte who acts upon prudent and Conscientious principles in vain entertains him with Schemes of Church-Government since the things contested are such as no Government in the world can make lawful It would be more rational to shew were not that an attempt long since despair'd of that the particular doctrines and practises to which we are invited are agreeable to the word of God or that it doth not concern us whether they be or not For if either it may be prov'd that the Errours of the Church of Rome were so great that there was a necessity of reforming them that every National Church has a right to reform her self that this right of the Church of England in particular was unquestionable that she us'd no other then this her lawful right and that accordingly the Reformation was effected by the Major part of the then legal Church-Governours Or if in failure of this which yet we say is far from being our case it may be prov'd that where evident Necessity requires and the prevailing Errours are manifest there the Civil power may lawfully reform Religion without the concurrence of the major part of the Clergy for Secular Interests averse from Reformation Or if lastly supposing no such Reformation made by lawful authority but the Laws which enjoyn such erroneous Doctrines remaining in their full force and vigour every private Christian can plead an Exemption from his Obedience to them by proving them evidently contradictory to the known laws of God if any one of these Pleas are valid all which have by our Writers been prov'd to be so beyond the possibility of a fair Reply then Nothing which is aim'd at in these Papers can affect us and tho' the author would have shew'd more skin in proving his Question yet he had still betray'd his want of prudence in the choice of it By what hath been sayd the Reader will be induc'd to think that these Papers do not so much concern the Church of England as the State and that a Reply to them is not so properly the task of a Divine as of a Lawyer The Civil power is indeed manifestly struck at and an Answer might easily be fetcht from Keble and Coke He may perswade himself that he acts craftily but certainly he acts very inconsistently who erects a Triumphal Statue to his Prince and at the same time undermines his Autority in monumental Inscriptions gives him the glorious and astonishing Title of Optimus Maximus and yet sets up a superiour Power to his If neither Loyalty nor gratitude could perswade him to speak more reverently yet out of wariness he ought to have been more cautious in laying down such things as seem to have an ill aspect on his Majesties proceedings For it may seem very rash to deny §. 5. p. 12. that the Prince can remove from the Exercise of his Office any of his Clergy for not obeying his Decisions in matters of a Spiritual Nature when a Reverend Prelate suffers under such a Sentence §. 7. p. 14. to assert that the Prince ought not to collate to Benefices where the Clergy have Canonical exceptions against the Person nominated whilst a Friend of his thus qualified enjoys the benefit of such a Collation to find fault with the Reformers that they gave their Prince leave to dispense with Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical §. 28. p. 36. when he himself is in that case most graciously dispens'd with How far the Regal power extends it self in these cases especially as it may be limited by the municipal laws of the Realm I am not so bold as to determine but where such Rights are claim'd by the Sovereign and actually exercis'd there it becomes not the modesty of a private Subject to be so open and liberal in condemning them But then above all he renders his Loyalty justly questionable when he tells us it is disputed by the Roman Doctors and leaves it a Question Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church §. 16. p. 20. then the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Princes coactive Power or to authorise others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the Church Now I appeal to the judicious Reader whether the substance of that infamous Libel which was part of a late * See Sidney's Trial. Traytour's Indictment and which was written by way of Polemical Discourse as he pleaded might not if manag'd by this Author's pen have been thus warily exprest Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Civil matters against Acts of Parliament then the Parliament hath not also virtually some temporal coactive power against the Prince namely to dissolve the Princes coactive power or to authorize others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the State Such bold Problems as these ought not to be left undecided and one who had any zeal for his Prince would scarce let the Affirmative side of the Quaestion pass without affixing a brand on it These Expressions among others He might well be conscious would be offensive to any SIR of known Fidelity and Loyalty to his Prince and therefore such person 's good Opinion was to be courted in an Epistle Apologetick But certainly it was expected that the kind Sir should read no farther then the Epistle for if he did he would find himself miserably impos'd upon The Author in this Epistle praeacquaints him with these things 1. That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only in things which are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 2. That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which or at least the chiefest of which all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed states do forego to Exercise 3. Nor of any but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth Now I shall humbly beg leave to undeceive the unknown Sir and to represent to him that in all these he is misinform'd As to the first 1. That there is nothing touch'd in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only such as are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Now if by dubious he means such things as He does not doubt but they are Spiritual then this doth not reach our case because We may doubt whether some things are not Temporal which He doubts not but they are Spiritual But if by dubious He means such things as are doubted by no body but that they are purely Spiritual then are we agreed since neither do We allow the Temporal Prince any
literis excitaverat ipse Sanctus adversus Regem pro Ecclesia starent redarguerent comminarentur oâ—â—entantes quae in arcu sagittae paratae erant ad feriendum censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes ut potius adversus eundem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent telis oppeterent jurgiorum in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum Bar. An. A. C. 1167. Margin A like warm Expostulation upon these proceedings we meet with in Stapleton de tribus Thomis in Thoma Cant. * Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tecte postulavit quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia aperte u surpavit nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurp'd viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England and again * Quid hoc est aliud nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Papâ— what was this but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects So that according to this Author Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Popes Encroachments viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edv. 3. Stat de provisoribus 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1.2 4. stat 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6.8 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our * Cokes Inst l. 4. c. â—4 Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19. concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm * 1. Eliz. c. 1. and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all forreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Jurisdictions of the same Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiasticall Where 1st As to the title of Head of the Church we find that * Twisd c. 5. par 2. King Edgar was reputed and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum the Vicar of Christ and by his Laws and Canons assur'd the world he did not in vain assume those titles * Chap. 5. par 14. c. 6. par 8. That our Forefathers stil'd their Kings Patrons Defenders Governours Tutors and Protectors of the Church And the Kings Regimen of the Church is thus exprest by King Edward the Confessor in his laws Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est constitutus ut regnum terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriosis defendat Leg. Edv. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a priviledge delegated by him what he claim'd as a right deriv'd immediately from God * Vobis posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae justa sunt To you saith that Pope to the Confessor and your Successours the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power They challenge from St. Peter himself to be * 1 Pet. II. 13. Supreme and from St. Paul that * Rom. XIII 1. every Soul should be subject to them And the extent of their Regal power may be learn'd from St. Austin who teaches us * In hoc Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in Regno suo bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem Aug. contra Crescâ—n l. 3. c. 51. that the Divine right of Kings as such authorized them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion In pursuance of which 2ly As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy namely the Keyes of Order and Jurisdiction so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices is evident to any one who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant A Collection of the Laws made by Ina Alfred Edward Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Ethelred Canutus and others we have publish'd by Mr. Lambard in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith Baptism Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops Priests Marriage Observance of Lent appointing of Festivals and the like And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Autority which our Editor cannot justly decline I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Publish'd in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford in the Name of the Alumni of that Society This Author speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical makes this Inference from them * Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur quod ex iis constat etiam illis temporibus Reges Saxonicos Alfredum Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos quam in Laicos neque Ecclesiam quae in ipsorum ditione esset esse quid peregrinum vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam quod Anselmus Beckettus aliique deinceps insecuti acriter eontenderunt Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par 12. These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation because from them it is evident that the
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 their Writings Prelates Bishop Andrews Bilson Carlton Morton Bramhal c. and Doctors Hammond Barrow c who have exhausted this Subject and made it impossible as to oppose it so to add any thing farther in Defence of it I shall choose therefore rather to refer the Reader to these great Men for the lawfulness of this Oath then to imitate this Author in transcribing § 187 Having attacqu'd this Oath in Opposition to repeated Acts of Parliament which guard it against such attempts with the severest Penalties he may more securely fall upon Dr. Fern who pleads that had none of these Bishops been remov'd by Q. Elizabeth Yet the 6 Bishops remaining of King Edward's being restor'd and the vacant Bishopricks supplyed the Popish Bishops would have been outvoted To prevent this Inference our Author tells us 1st That King Edward's Bishops being justly ejected by Q. Mary could not now lawfully act That their ejection was just he supposes we were convinc'd above The Reader therefore according to the Degrees of Conviction which he found there is to pass his judgment here 2dly That Q. Elizabeth could not justly supply the vacant Bishopricks with any Persons but such as the Major part of her present Bishops did first approve of But this if it prove any thing proves too much For if want of the approbation of a major part of Bishops makes the Election and Consecration of a Bishop void then neither was Q. Mary's Hierarchy lawful nor the Acts of her Synods valid if none can be a true Bishop who has not the approbation of a major part of the Bishops of the Province no true Bishop has sat in St. Peter's chair for some Centuries If this rule be admitted it will cut of the Episcopal power of the Bishops of Amasia and Adramyttium A Reply to Chapter the 12th THis Chapter concerns our Ordinations in which I miss the story of the Nags-head a Fable hist out of the world with so much scorn as 't is well and wisely omitted even by this Author But to make some amends for this Omission what is here offer'd is pickt up from the Confutations of our Writers There is not an Objection which has not been replied to by Mr. Mason Arch-Bishop Bramhal and more lately by Dr. Burnet As will more clearly appear if I leave this dispute to be manag'd betwixt the Pamphlet and them Pamphlet The new Ordination grew so far suspected as deficient to Q. Mary that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one That touching such Persons at were heretofore promoted to any Orders considering they were not ordered in very deed the Bishop of the Diocess finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men may supply that thing which wanted in them before and then according to his discretion admit them to minister A. Bp. Bramhal To this Objection that the Form of ordaining in King Edward's days was declar'd invalid in Q. Mary's days I answer that we have no reason to regard their Judgment They who made no scruple to take away their lives would make no scruple to take away their Holy Orders I answer also and this Answer alone is sufficient to determine this Controversie that King Edward's Form of Ordination was judg'd valid in Q. Mary's days by all Catholics and particularly by Cardinal Pool then Apostolical Legate in England and by the then Pope Paul the 4th and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England This appears clearly from the words of the Cardinal's Dispensation wherein he confirms all Persons which had been Ordain'd or benefic'd in the time of King Henry or Edward in their respective Orders and Benefices From which I argue that if King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations which was requir'd by the Institution of Christ then it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates that ever were in the world to confirm their respective Orders or dispence with them to execute their Functions in the Church a Consecr of Protest Bps. Vindicated c. 4. p. 445. A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Edit Dub. 1676. Pamphl But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument you may observe that the Cardinal very cautiously here saith not dispensamus or recipimus in the present as he doth in every one of his other dispensings but dispensabimus in the future A. Bp. Br. It may perhaps be objected that the Dispensative word is recipiemus we will receive not we do receive I answer the case is all one If it were unlawful to receive them in the present it was as unlawful to receive them in the future a Ibid. Pamphl He saith not recipiemus simply but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt referring to the manner of reception which had been us'd formerly in Q. Mary's days which we find set down in the Queen's 13th Article viz. That such new Ordained repairing to the Bishop and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders as they being before not order'd in very deed A. Bp. Br. All that was done after was to take a particular Absolution or Confirmation from the Pope or his Legate which many of the principal Clergy did but not all No not all the Bishops not the Bishop of Landaf as Sanders witnesseth yet he enjoy'd his Bishoprick so did all the rest of the Clergy who never had any particular confirmation It is not material at all whether they were confirm'd by a general or by a special dispensation so they were confirm'd or dispens'd with at all to hold all their Benefices and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church which no man can deny b Ibid. Pamphl That the Roman Bishops held not the orders receiv'd by the new Form sufficiently valid is clear from the Bishop of Glocester his degrading Ridley only from his Presbytership not his Episcopacy for saith he We do not acknowledge You for a Bishop Mr. Mason Ridley was consecrated by the old form and therefore this Objection is impertinent c Mas Vindic. Eccl. Angl. l 2. c. 15. §. 10. p 209. Edit Lond. 1625. Pamp. The same You may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old form Bishop by the new and therefore degraded in Q. Mary's days only as a Priest Dr. Burnet They went upon this Maxim that Orders given in Schism were not valid so they did not esteem Ridley nor Hooper Bishops and therefore only degraded them from Priesthood tho' they had been ordain'd by their own forms saving only the Oath of Obedience to the Pope a Burn. Hist V. 2 p. 290. Pamph. Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new form and therefore in his condemnation not degraded at all but treated as a mere Laick A. Bp. Br. Popish Bishops are no competent witnesses to give evidence concerning the Orders of Protestants If one of us should urge a Determination in either of
our Universities against them in a point of Controversy agitated between us for an authentic proof how would He make himself merry with Us Yet we might do the one as well as he doth the other b Protest Ordin def against S.N. Tom. 4. Disc 7. p. 1006. Pamphl Bishop Bonner wrote a book wherein he contended that the new devis'd Ordination of Ministers was insufficient and void because no Autority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the body and blood of our Saviour Christ but both the Ordainer and Ordained despis'd and impugn'd not only the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass but also the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar A. Bp. Br. He saith We are not order'd to offer true Substantial Sacrifice Not expresly indeed No more were they themselves for 800 Years after Christ and God knows how much longer No more are the Greek Church or any other Christian Church except the Roman at this day Yet they acknowledg them to be rightly Ordain'd and admit them to exercise all the Offices of Priestly Function in Rome it self We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving a Commemorative Sacrifice or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross a Representative Sacrifice or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the Eyes of his Heavenly Father an Imperative Sacrifice or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of Real prayer and lastly an Applicative Sacrifice or an application of his merits unto our Souls Let him that dare go one step farther then We do and say that it is a Suppletory Sacrifice to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross Or else let them hold their peace and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever a Bp. Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 3. c. 9. p. 255. Pamp. Those who are truely ordain'd yet if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church their true Orders as to the Exercise of them are unlawful and so unless a Church be first clear'd from Heresy and Schism these Orders are not rightly employed in it A. Bp. Br. First I deny that the Protestant Bishops did revolt from the Catholic Church Nay they are more Catholic than the Roman-Catholics themselves Secondly I deny that the Protestant Bishops are Heretics Thirdly I deny that they are guilty of Schism Fourthly I deny that the Autority of our Protestant Bishops was ever restrain'd by the Catholic Church Fifthly No sentence whatsoever of whomsoever or of what crime soever can obliterate the Episcopal Character which is indeleble nor disable a Bishop from Ordaining so far as to make the Act invalid b Ibid. Disc 7. p. 990. Pam. Tho' I do not here state the Question Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops yet their Ordination and Introduction if valid seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful A. Bp. Br. For the Canons we maintain that our form of Episcopal Ordination hath the same Essentials with the Roman but in other things of inferior allay it differeth from it The Papal Canons were never admitted for binding Laws in England farther then they were receiv'd by our selves and incorporated into our Laws but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholic Church And for our Statutes the Parliament hath answer'd that Objection sufficiently shewing clearly that the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops was legal and for the validity of it we crave no man's favour a Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc 5. cap. 8. p. 471. Pamph. They came many of them into the places of others unjustly expell'd A. Bp. Br. This is saying but we expect proving b Ibid. Pamph. Neither the major part nor any save one of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination Dr. Bur. If Ordinations or Consecrations upon the King's Mandate be invalid which the Paper drives at then all the Ordinations of the Christian-Church are also annul'd since for many Ages they were all made upon the Mandates of Emperors and Kings By which You may see the great weakness of this Argument c Dr. Burnet's Vindic. of our Ordinations p. 09. Pamph. No Metropolitan can be made without the consent of the Patriarch but Arch-Bishop Parker was ordain'd without and against the consent of the Patriarch A. Bp. Br. The British Islands neither were nor ought to be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch as I have sufficiently demonstrated a Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 2. cap. 9. p. 128. Pamph. Neither did be receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior but merely that which the Queen a Lay-Person by her Delegates in this Employment did undertake to conferr upon him Dr. Bur. All Consecrations in this land are made by Bishops by the power that is inherent in them only the King gives orders for the Execution of that their power Therefore all that the Queen did in the case of Matthew Parker and the Kings do since was to command so many Bishops to exercise a power they had from Christ in such or such Instances b Vindic. of Ord. p. 89. Pamph. Which Delegates of hers were none of them at that time possest of any Diocess Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chichester and Hereford and Coverdale never after admitted or elected to any and Hoskins a Suffragan A. Bp. Br. The Office and Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthron'd may ordain as well as a Bishop inthron'd The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishopricks was always reputed as good in the Catholic Church if the Suffragan had Episcopal Ordination as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world c Bramhal's Works Tom. 1. Disc 5. c. 5. p. 452. Pamph. Nor had they had Dioceses could have had any larger Jurisdiction save within these at least being single Bishops could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction which yet they confer'd on Parker not on their own sure but on the Queen's Score Dr. Bur. Does he believe himself who says that none can Install a Bishop in a Jurisdiction above himself Pray then who invests the Popes with their Jurisdiction Do not the Cardinals do it and are not they as much the Pope's Suffragans as Hodgskins was Canterburie's so that if inferiors cannot invest one in a Superior Jurisdiction then the Popes can have none legally since they have their's from the Cardinals that are inferior in Jurisdiction There are two things to be consider'd in the Consecration of a Primate the one is giving him the Order of a Bishop the other is inverting him with the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan For the former all Bishop are equal in Order none has more or less then another so that the Consecrators of Matthew Parker being Bishops by their