Church-Government PART V. A RELATION OF THE English Reformation AND The lawfulness thereof examined by the THESES deliver'd in the Four former Parts Printed at OXFORD 1687. The CONTENTS CHAP. I. EIGHT Theses pre-posed whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation § 1. CHAP. II. Three Heads of this Discourse I. 1. Head How the English Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals § 17. And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it § 23. CHAP. III. II. 2. Head Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on or also claimed by the Prince § 26. n. 2. 1. In the times of Henry the Eighth CHAP. IV. 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth § 38. CHAP. V. The former Supremacy disclaimed by Queen Mary and by the Bishops in her days and the Pope's Supremacy re-acknowledged § 48. And the final judgment of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church And the Church-doctrine under King Edward condemned § 51. That Queen Maries Clergy was a lawful Clergy That the Bishops in King Edward's days were not lawfully ejected § 54. Neither as to the Authority ejecting them Nor as to the Cause That the Bishops deprived in Queen Mary's days were lawfully ejected Both as to the Cause And as to the Judge § 64. Where Concerning the burning of those who in Queen Mary's days were by the Church condemned of Heresy § 65. And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places CHAP. VI. 3. In the times of Queen Elizabeth That as ample a Supremacy was claimed and by Parliament conferred on her as on King Henry or Edward § 70. Where Concerning certain qualifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed § 72. And the Replyes to them But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy § 77. CHAP. VII III. 3. Head How according to such Supremacy assumed these three Princes acted in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 78. 1. The Actings of Henry the Eighth in Ecclesiastical Affairs In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastical Laws and compiling a new body of them In putting forth a model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Six Articles § 81. Where Concerning the complaints made by Protestants of his abuse of the Supremacy In the consecrating and confirming of Bishops and Metropolitans § 86. In the putting down of Monasteries c. § 87. The pretences thereof § 89. Reflections upon these pretences § 93. In the dispensing with the former Church Canons concerning Marriages Fasts Holy days c. § 99. In the publishing and afterward prohibiting of the Scriptures in a vulgar tongue § 101. CHAP. VIII 2. The Actings of King Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs § 104. 1. Set down first more generally In putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Homilies sending Commissions thro the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy c. In the prohibition of Preaching till he had setled Religion The Defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings in matters of Religion The Reply thereto § 111. Where Concerning the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the Kings Reformations § 119. CHAP. IX 2. More particularly In sending certain Doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Winchester In repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Henry the Eighth's time § 137. In seizing on Religious Houses and some Bishops Lands and denying the lawfulness of Monastick Vows In defacing Images In enjoyning Administration of the Communion in both kinds § 142. In suppressing the former Church-Liturgies Ordinals and other Rituals § 143. In setting up new Forms Of celebrating the Communion § 144. Of Ordination § 145. Of Common-Prayer § 146. Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass § 147. Where 1. Concerning the alterations of the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward's in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist 148. 2. Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer-Book in relation to the same Sacrifice § 149. 3. Concerning the reduction of some things touching this matter in the new Common-Prayer-Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of King Edward § 150. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis § 151. And the celebration of the Eucharist prohibited when none other to communicate with the Priest § 152. And Invocation of Saints expunged out of the Litanies § 154. And the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession relaxed § 155. CHAP. X. In setting forth a second Form of Common-Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate § 157. In which second Book are rectified and removed many things which gave offence in the former § 158. Among the rest Prayer for the Dead and several expressions that seemed to inferr the Real or Corporal Presence in the Eucharist § 160. Where Concerning the reduction of some things touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to King Edward's first Form § 161. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis In the abrogation of several Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts Celibacy of the Clergy c Lastly In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion different from the former doctrines of the Church § 165. Where Whether these Articles were passed by any Synod CHAP. XI 3. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical matters § 170. All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and King Edward's days being reversed by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days Her calling of a Synod which declareth against the Reformation A Disputation between the Bishops and the Râ—â—â—â—med Divines § 177. The Regal Supremacy and all that King Edward had done in the Reformation now re-established by the Qu. and Parliament § 179. But not by the Clergy The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy § 180. The unlawfulness of this Ejection Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend § 181. How far not § 183. That Submission to the Regal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops § 184. Concerning Forreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs how far it is to be acknowledged § 185. That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops § 186. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be lawfully ejected on any other ground as would render the Protestant Bishops a major part § 187. CHAP. XII Concerning the defects of the Queen's Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days § 190. n. 1. Concerning the defects of the new Bishops ordained in Qu. Elizabeth's days § 191. Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Canons § 193. Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination § 194. CHAP. XIII Digression concerning The Opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of Doctrine against the major part of the Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it 196. Opinion Of Dr. Field § 197. Of Mr. Mason § 199.
sunt prorsus abroganda censuimus Quorum loco en vobis authoritate nostrâ editas leges damus quas a vobis omnibus suscipi coli observari volumus sub nostrae indignationis paenâ mandamus Thus the King Where the meaning of the words decreta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt must be extended to Decrees not only Pontifical but Synodal wherein the Pope presided for the Canon-Law is compiled of both these and over both these did the Kings Supremacy claim Authority in his Dominions and over whatsoever else seemed to him established not by Divine but only by Humane Authority See before § 22.23.27 And also the things changed by him were not the Decrees of Popes but of Councils § 80 By vertue of such a Supremacy he put forth certain Injunctions A. D. 1536. concerning matters of Faith Intitled Articles devised by the Kings Highness to stable Christian quietness and unity amongst the People you may read them set down at large in Mr. Fuller's Church History 5. l. p. 216 for Mr. Fox his Epitome of them conceals many things It is true that these Articles as also the Six Articles published afterward 1539 and the Necessary Doctrine set forth 1543. do for the matter of them as they seem to me discede in nothing from the Doctrines of former Councils nor have nothing in them favouring the reformed Opinions for they allow Invocation of Saints Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory kneeling and praying before tho not to Images the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Auricular Confession and do not deny Seven Sacraments as some misrelate them because they speak only of Three which Seven Sacraments are all acknowledged and treated on in Necessary Doctrine c. And it cannot be denyed that the Clergy of King Henry also whom he used much more than his Successors King Edward and Queen Elizabeth in his Consultations concerning Religion were except in the introducing of the Kings Supremacy very opposite to the Reformation of other Doctrines or Ceremonies in the Church as appears by the Mala dogmata transcribed out of the Records by Mr. Fuller 5. l. p. 209. to the Number of 67. much agreeing with the Modern Tenents of Puritans Anabaptists and Quakers which Mala Dogmata being by the Lower House of Convocation at this time presented to the Upper House of Bishops to have them condemned occasioned the production of these Injunctions But yet notwithstanding all this for the manner of the Edition of these Injunctions or Articles it is to be noted that the King by vertue of his Supremacy commands them to be accepted by his Subjects not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church but as judged by him agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God and makes the Clergy therein only his Counsellor and Adviser not a Law-giver See besides the Title his words in the Preface to those Injunctions Which determination debatement and agreement of the Clergy saith he forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good right and true judgment and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God we have caused the same to be published requiring you to accept repute and take them accordingly i. e. as agreeable to Gods Laws and Ordinances So where in these Injunctions he commandeth the Observation of Holy-days he saith We must keep Holy-days unto God in Memory of Him and his Saints upon such days as the Church hath ordained except they be mitigated and moderated by the Assent and Commandment of us the Supream Head to the Ordinaries and then the Subjects ought to obey it such command § 81 By vertue of such a Supremacy he afterward published a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith In putting forth a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith and the Sâ—x A ticles and of the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same for matter of Doctrine not much differing from the Injunctions mentioned before which Book he Entitled A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People adding a Preface thereto in his Royal name to all his faithful and loving Subjects That they might know saith he the better in those dangerous times what to believe in point of Doctrine and how to carry themselves in points of Practice Which Book before the publishing thereof after it saith Dr. Heylin Reform Chur. Engl. § 4. p. 23. was brought into as much Perfection as the said Arch-Bishops Bishops and other Learned Men appointed by the King to this work would give it without the concurrence of the Royal Assent was presented once again to the Kings consideration who very carefully perused and altered many things with his own hand as appears by the Book it self extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library and having so altered and corrected it in some Passages returned it to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Arch-Bishop Cranmer who bestowed some further pains upon it that being to come forth in the Kings Name and by his Authority there might be nothing in the same that might be justly reprehended For a Preparatory to which Book that so it might come forth with the greater credit the King caused an Act to pass in Parliament 34 35. Hen. 8.1 c. for the abolishing of all Books and Writings comprising any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that Doctrine which since the Year 1540 is or any time during the Kings life shall be set forth by his Highness Thus Dr. Heylin Which Definitions Decrees and Ordinances so set forth by the King all his Subjects were fully to believe obey and observe 32. Hen. 8. 26. c. See before § 32. And if any Spiritual Person should preach or teach contrary to those Determinations or any other that should be so set forth by his Majesty such Offender the third time contrary to that Act of Parliament was to be deemed and adjudged an Heretick and to suffer pains of death by Burning See before § 34. By which Act therefore amongst other things the holding of the Pope's Supremacy which is contrary to the Doctrine of that Book is declared Heresy And see the like ordained by Parliament concerning the Six Articles in 31. Hen. 8.14 c. where it is Enacted That every Person that doth preach teach declare argue against any of the Six Articles being thereof convicted shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretick § 82 And thus Heresy now belonging to the Kings Cognizance as the Church's Supream Head became also by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joyned with the Kings a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King 's Of their Cognizance not only for the declaring and punishing but the adjudging of it And their Vote herein was joyned at least with that of the Clergy if not in Authority preferred before it as appears by these and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14 c. mentioned before § 34 and in the two Proviso's of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned
§ 70. And see the Reason given by Dr. Heylin why Parliaments which in former Ages abstained from them in this Age of Henry the Eighth began to intermeddle in stating of matters of Religion namely this reason A new Supream in Ecclesiastical Affairs then set up Engl. Reform Justified p. 41. Where he first relateth out of Walsingham how long since Wickleff having many Doctrines strange and new which he desired to establish in the Church of England and seeing he could not authorize them in a regular way addressed his Petition to the Parliament laying this down for a Position That the Parliament might lawfully examine and reform the Disorders and Corruptions of the Church and upon a discovery of the Errors and Corruptions of it devest her of all Tithes and Temporal Endowments till she were reformed But neither his Petition nor Position saith he found any welcome in that Parliament and then he goeth on thus To say truth as long as the Clergy were in Power and had Authority in Convocation to do what they would in matters which concerned Religion those of the Parliament conceived it neither safe nor fitting to intermeddle in such business as concerned the Clergy for sear of being questioned for it at the Church's Barr the Church being then conceived to have the just Supremacy herein But when that Power was lessened tho it were not lost by the Submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth and by the Act of the Kings Supremacy in matters of Religion which ensued upon it then did the Parliament begin to intrench upon the Church's Rights to offer at and entertain such businesses as formerly were held peculiar to the Clergy only next to dispute their Charters and reverse their Priviledges and finally to impose many hard Laws upon them Thus he Which Example of the Parliaments meddling with Opinions and stating of Heresy thus begun under Henry the Eighth's Church Supremacy hath made some Parliaments since also so active with the assistance of some Persons selected by them out of the Clergy of the same Inclinations in altering modelling establishing an Orthodox Religion and hath emboldened Mr. Prinn see Heylin p. 27. to affirm it an ancient genuine just and lawful Prerogation thereof to establish true Religion in this Church by which establishing if Mr. Prin means not judging of Truth and Error in matter of Religion but only requiring Obedience to the Judgment of the Church this is willingly granted to be an establishing duly belonging to that Supream Court. § 83 I have dwelt the longer on the Instances foremen tioned Where Codeer the complaâ—â—ts made by Pâ—testaats of his abuse of the Suprenacy that you may see when a Prince together with his particular Clergy or rather whom out of them he shall choose without these being linked in a due subordination to the whole claimeth such a power of composing Models of Christian Faith and declaring all those his Subjects Hereticks who do not believe and obey such his Determinations what danger what mutability Christian Religion incurrs in such a Nation as often as this Supreme and Independent Head is not every way Orthodox And so it happened in the Acts of this new-sprung Supremacy of Henry that those who much pleased themselves in it whilst it run the course they would have it in abating the former Power of the Clergy in throwing down Monasteries Religious Vows Relicks Images c yet afterward lamented it as much when necessity of the Kings compliance with Forreign Princes and the influence of new evil Counsellors saith Fox p. 1036. made the same Supremacy produce a contrary sort of Fruit which they could not so easily digest I mean the Six Articles here also pronouncing Heresy to the Opposers and punishing the same with Fire and Faggot and the Prohibition and suppression of many Godly Books as Mr. Fox calls them but full of Errors and Heresies as the Supream Head of this Church and also as Arch-Bishop Cranmer whose Declaration against them see in Fox p. 1136. then judged them some of the Contents of which Godly Books as they were then collected by Cranmer and other Prelates you may see in Fox ibid. and the Prohibiting all Women Artificers Husbandmen c from reading the Scriptures of which more anon § 84 Which Supremacy so ill used as he thought forced from Mr. Fox that sad complaint both in particular concerning the Kings imposing of the Six Articles p. 1037. That altho they contained manifest Errors Heresies and Absurdities against all Scripture and Learning whereby we may see how these Supream Heads also may deviate from the truth and how dangerous it is to commit the Reformation of all Errors and Heresies into their hands who by this Power instead thereof may enjoyn Errors and Heresies and that even against all Scripture and Learning as Henry the Eighth tho a Scholar is here supposed to have done and that even to pronouncing those Hereticks that do not submit to such Heresy he goes on Yet such was he miserable Adversity of that time and of the Power of Darkness yet King Henry said the times were full of Light that the simple Cause of Truth was utterly forsaken of all friends For every man seeing the Kings mind who was now the Legislator in Spirituals so fully addicted upon politick respects to have these Articles to pass forward few or none in that Parliament would appear who either could perceive that which was to be defended or durst defend that they understood to be true And also in general concerning that Kings managing his Supremacy p. 1036. from which Posterity might have learnt some wisdome To many saith he who be yet alive and can testify these things it is not unknown How variable the State of Religion stood in these days How hardly and with what difficulty it came forth what chances and changes it suffered even as the King was ruled and gave ear sometimes to one sometimes to another so one while it went forward at another Season as much backward again and sometime clean altered and changed for a Season according as they could prevail who were about the King So long as Queen Anne lived the Gospel had indifferent Success Here then the Supream Head of the Church was directed by a Woman and managed the Affairs of Religion accordingly After that she by sinister Instigation of some about the King was made away the course of the Gospel began again to decline but that the Lord stirred op the Lord Cromwel opportunely to help in that behalf who did much avail for the increase of Gods true Religion Here then the Supream Head of the Church was directed by a Laick and managed Religion accordingly and much more had he brought to perfection if the pestilent Adversaries maligning the prosperous Glory of the Gospel had not supplanted his vertuous Proceedings Mr. Fox names not Cranmer amongst these Worthies because he was an Agent in many of those Proceedings of Henry the Eighth which
last Speech in Parliament 1545 Lord Herb. p. 536. I am very sorry to know and hear how irreverently that most precious Jewel the Word of God is disputed and jangled in every Ale-house and Tavern contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same I am sure that vertuous and godly living was never less used nor God never less reverenced or honoured Thus King Henry And this to shew you how and when this vulgar Theology first began and how much then so early it was relented by the Magistrate § 108 By vertue of such a Supremacy these things that King did some of them against the Canons not of Popes but of the Church Catholick and of Superior Councils and as some of them with for he used the consent of his Convocation more than his Successor so others of them without the consent of his Clergy whom saith Lord Herb. p. 439. he every day more and more devested of their former Authority And for the beginnings of his Reformation Arch-Bishop Parker in his Antiquit. Brittan p. 325. saith that Cromwellus cum Cranmero Archiepiscopo tanquam in puppi sedit clavumque Ecclesiae Anglicanae tenuit Nam Praelatorum fides eo magis dubia incerta Regi visa est quod long â morâ difficultate tanquam taedio abducti sint a Papa sibique Supremi Capitis titulum detulissent But whether these things done with or without his Clergy yet the stile of his Injunctions sufficiently sheweth in what person the legislative power in Spiritual matters was then conceived to reside these Injunctions running authoritatively and for the submission of all mens judgments to them either in his own name single as the Church's Supreme Head or in the name of his Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical Affairs Cromwel who therefore is ordered 31. Hen. 8.10 c. in regard of this Office and all those who should succeed him therein to sit in the Parliament-house above the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or in the name of the King and Parliament The usual Phrase of the King and Parliament in such Decrees you have seen in former instances where they do not ground these Decrees any further on the Authority of the Clergy save only on their recognizing of the Kings Supremacy upon which Supremacy all the rest are Super-structions § 103 Now hear the Stile of his Vicegerent Cromwel upon whom a Secular Person too and unlearned that the King should derive his whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority you may read in Lord Herb. Hist p. 402 what a wonderment it caused amongst many as a thing in no other time or person to be parallelled neither in the much pleaded Patterns of the Kings of Israel nor in the former practice of Popes This Vicegerent thus prefaceth to the Injunctions that were published 1536. I Tho. Cromwel c Vicegerent to our Sovereign Lord the King for and concerning all his Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm to the Glory of Almighty God to the Kings Highness's Honor the publick Weale of this Realm and increase of Vertue in the same have appointed and assigned these Injunctions ensuing to be kept and observed of the Dean Parsons Vicars c under the pains hereafter limited and appointed And the like Expressions much what are observed in the Injunctions set forth in 1538 〈◊〉 p. 1000 By the Authority and Commission of the most excellent Prince Henry in Earth Supreme Head under Christ of the Church of England I Tho. Cromwel Vicegerent c do for the discharge of the King's Majesty give and exhibit these Injunctions following to be kept and fulfilled c. First that ye shall truly observe all and singular the Kings Highness's Injunctions given unto you heretofore in my name by his Grace's Authority c. This is enough to shew where the legislative Power for Spiritual matters rested in Henry the Eighth's days After which Injunctions this is Mr. Fox's Epiphonema By these Articles and Injunctions saith he thus coming forth one after another for the necessary Instruction of the People but surely Mr. Fox had here forgot the Contents of the Kings first Articles which I mentioned before § 80. much contrary to the Reformed Doctrines conformable to the Romish it may appear how well the King deserved then the Title of his Supreme Government given unto him over the Church of England but to moderate Mr. Fox his Acclamations here let me put him in mind at another time in his esteem how ill he deserved it remembring his words set down before § 84. By the which Title and Authority he did more good for the redressing and advancing of Christ's Church and Religion here in England in those three years than the Pope the great Vicar of Christ with all his Bishops and Prelates had done in the space of three hundred years before CHAP. VIII The Actings of Edward the Sixth in Ecclesiastical Affairs THE Breach upon the Church's former Authority Doctrines § 104 and Practices being thus made by Henry the Eighth 2. The Actings of K. Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs No marvel if by his Successors it was much enlarged Next then to look into the actions of Edward the Sixth with relation to Church affairs This Prince being not yet ten years old when he came to the Crown was chiefly directed and steered by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and by his Uncle the Duke of Somerset who was made Protector of his Person and Realm not by the will of Henry the Eighth who dreaded to trust any one person with this Charge but by the major part of those sixteen persons to whom in common he committed the government of his Son and Kingdome Of which Duke Mr. Fox saith p. 1180 and 1248 That he bare great favour to Gods word and that he brought with him to the State of that his Dignity his ancient love and zeal Of the Gospel and of Religion he means reformed The proof whereof saith he p. 1183.1184 was sufficiently seen in his constant standing to Gods truth and zealous defence thereof against the Bishops of Chichester Norwich Lincolne London and others moe in the consultation about composing a new form of administring the Sacrament had at Windsor in the first year of the King's Reign So inclined was the Protector and so inclined were many of the Council § 105. n. 1 and some of those who were otherwise yet openly complyed with the prevailing party for secular ends and amongst these even Dudley the great Duke of Northumberland the chief Agent in the later times of Edward who confessed so much at his death he then exhorting the people See Stow An. 1553. Fox p. 1280. and Goodwin p. 278. That they should embrace the Religion of their Forefathers rejecting that of later date which had occasioned all the miseries of the forepast thirty years i. e. from the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Supremacy and that for prevention for the future they should expel those Trumpets of Sedition the Preachers of the reformed Religion and declaring
he saith Authoritate Rex propriâ resecare potest superstitiones quas sacerdotes ipsi tolerant but he saith not quas sacerdotes ipsi docent nen esse superstitiones Again p. 364. he speaks thus of a thing done In Israele praecipuae in re religionis partes penes Regem extiterunt vel uno hoc argumento quod per sacrae historiae seriem totam mutato novi regis animo mutata semper est facies religionis Nec Pontifices unquam vel praestare poterant ut fieret mutatio in melius vel ne fieret in pejus impedire And p. 368. Passim per fastos sacros quod in religione fit a rege fieri diserte dicitur Regis factum esse Pontificis haud unquam nisi ex Regis mandato But I hope he will not hence infer that summa religionis is not penes Pontifices if the Prince apostatizeth from the true Religion or that the Church Governors may do nothing contra Regis mandatum nor may oppose him and teach the people contrary to his Reformations where they judge that he reformeth not aright what did the Church-Governors for the first 300 years Especially since p. 377. which I desire you much to mark he alloweth such Ecclesiastical Primacy as the good Kings of Israel used not to all but only to Christian Princes and to Christian Princes not all but only those not heretical and I suppose he would say also not schismatical for if the Prince were heretical or schismatical he well saw the mischief of such a power so he saith there Interim autem sit vel infidelis Princeps sit vel haereticus Oretur pro eo non minus quam pro Nebuchadonozar nemo vitae ejus insidietur non magis quam Ahasueri Fidem penes semet habeant Christiani subditi coram Deo caeteris in rebus pietatem colant Non ergo id agitur ut ecclesiae persecutores ecclesiae gubernatores habeantur c. And something toward this saith Mr. Mason de Minist 3. l. 5. c. if I rightly understand him Regibus qui vel non sunt christiani vel si christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen sancti primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid i. e. quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii none such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship unless the Author seek for some refuge in the Epithets rectus plenus illustris And the same saith Bishop Bicson When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of infidelity and heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which question he answers The Metropolitan Now if no Prince heretical tho Christian hath any Primacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs before we yield such Primacy to a Prince we must know whether he be not heretical and who can so rightly judge of this as the Church or Clergy And then will not the Church and is it not right to judge him such when he opposeth her present or former definitions in matters of Faith See Church Govern 3. Part § 42. And what just Supremacy then for matter of Doctrine is left here to the Prince but an authorizing by his coactive power the Church's decrees Which Regal Supremacy all sides allow But as I said this is contrary to what Bishop Andrews saith elsewhere that the Princes Supremacy may oppose the Clergy when they do i. e. when he thinks they do recedere de viâ non docere juxta legem Dei c. § 203 The fourth Author I shall produce is Mr. Thorndike who writing very rationally and resolutely in vindication of the Church's authority Of Mr. Thorndike as using his Pen against modern Sectarists yet takes care also to save the Phaenomena of the Reformation He therefore in his Right of the Church 5. c. p. 248. after he had with much freedome shewed That the Succession of the Clergy in such a Government as that the visible Communion of the whole Church might be perpetually kept in unity See before §. 188. was a Law ordained by the Apostles and That the Reformation made in England had plainly violated this Law in that the new Bishops that were introduced were made without and against the consent of the former some of his words are cited before § 200. taketh this course to solve this difficulty and to preserve the English Reformation notwithstanding this from being unlawful or schismatical To come then saith he to the great difficulty proposed it is to be acknowledged that the power of the Church in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continual Succession is a Law ordained by the Apostles for the unity of the Church c. But withal it is to be acknowledged that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles whether they concern matters of Faith or matter of Works c. which proceeding from the same if not a greater power than the Succession of the Church are to be retained all and every one of them with the same religion and conscience as the succession of the Church Again I have shewed indeed that the secular power is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical in their determining all things which are not otherwise determined by our Lord and his Apostles and to give force and effect to the acts of the same But in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles as Laws given to the Church if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the power of the Church is trusted shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Here Mr. Thorndike holds that the Secular power may restore any law which Christ or his Apostles have ordained not only against a major part but all the Clergy and Governors of the Church and may for a penalty of their opposing it suppress their power and commit it to others tho they also be established by another Law Apostolical Which was the thing I undertook to shew you § 204 But to say something to this discourse of his What reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and the succession of the Clergy doth oppose Which Clergy sure will never confess such to be a law of our Lord but always will
will thus also go against them because as the major part of the Clergy of Christianity so of the Laity and Princes were they made the Judges in that Council are opposite to the Reformation 5. That they do set up the authority of Provincial or National Synods in some cases See 2. Part § 29.44 against General the ill consequences of which introducing such an Aristocratical or rather so many several Monarchical Governments into the Church as there are several Metropolitans or Primates see in 2. Part § 78. n. 2. and do hold this a sufficient foundation of Reformation tho indeed so much if the things said in this 5th Part stand good cannot be pleaded for it Now all these guards and fences of the Reformed seem to me to render a future Council were it never so universal and free of none effect as to ending Controversies unless it pass on their side and again seem to argue an Autocatacrisis in them as to the judgment of the Church Catholick and of Councils viz. that they apprehend they should be cast by those whom yet they shew a willingness to be tryed by Especially when as after now an 140 years divulging of their doctrines their reasons and their demonstrations they see that tho at the first perhaps out of novelty their opinions made a wonderful progress and growth yet for above half of this age the Reformation hath stood at a stay and of late hath rather lost ground and is grown decrepit and much abated of its former bulk and stature § 221 To conclude In such a rejection of or aversion from the Church's judgment let none think himself secure in relying on the testimony of his conscience or judgment 1. either that he doth nothing against it which security many of all sects not only living but dying have for sickness ordinarily hath no new revelations of truth in it and what sect is there that hath not had Martyrs The Roman party many at Tiburn and the Protestant in Smithfield and even Atheism it self hath had those that have dyed for it Vaninus and others 2. Or that he hath taken sufficient care to inform it which thing also all sects shew themselves confident-in I say let none think himself secure in any of these things so long as his conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing namely his disobedience and inconformity to the Church Catholick I mean to the major part of the Guides thereof as formerly explained in Chur. Gov. 2. Part § 8. c. 24. c. a disobedience which Luther and the first Reformers could not but acknowledge Epistle to Melancthon 145. Nos discessionem a toto mundo saith facere coacti sumus And let him know that his condition is very dangerous when he maketh the Church-guides of his own time or the major part thereof uncommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion when for the maintaining of his opinions he begins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of the Church between the doctrines of the Catholick Church of the former ages and of the Catholick Church of the present between the Church's orthodoxness in necessaries and in non-necessaries to salvation when he begins to maintain the authority of an inferior ecclesiastical judge against a superior or of a minor part of the Church-guides against a major Which whosoever doth tho perchance he wanteth not many companions had need to be sure and sure again that he is in the right because this thing in the day of judgment will hinder all those that err from pleading invincible or inculpable ignorance when as they do grant both that God hath given them beside the Scriptures guides of their Faith and that they have in their judgment departed from these guides i. e from a major part of them which in a Court consisting of many is the legal Judge I say In the Name of God let every Religious Soul take heed of such Autocatacrises FINIS SIR WEll knowing your Fidelity and Loyalty to your Prince lest you should be offended with some expressions in this discourse concerning the limited authority of the supreme Civil Power in Spiritual matters I must pre-acquaint you with these three things 1. That there is nothing touched herein concerning the Temporal Prince his supreme power in all Civil or Temporal matters whatever nor in such as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only concerning the Supremacy in things that are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Namely such as Christianity hath de novo by our Saviours authority and commission introduced into the world and into the several Civil States thereof which do voluntarily subject themselves unto its laws and such as the Church Governors our Saviours Substitutes from the beginning have lawfully exercised in several Princes dominions when the same Princes have prohibited them the exercise of such things under pain of death Which things you may see numbred by Bishop Carleton below § 3. or by Dr. Taylor or by the Kings Paper Ibid. 2. That there is nothing asserted here concerning the lawfulness of any Spiritual power 's using or authorizing any others to use the material or temporal Sword in any case or necessity whatsoever tho it were in ordine ad Spiritualia 3. That I know not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denyed 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 and do leave to the management of the Clergy and yet their Crowns notwithstanding the relinquishing this power in Spirituals subsist prosper flourish And not any but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth Now no more Supremacy in such Ecclesiastical matters as are delegated by Christ to the Clergy and are unalienable by them to any Secular power can belong to the Princes of one Time or of one Nation than do to any other Prince of a former Time or a diverse Nation Because what are thus the Church's Rights no Civil or Municipal law of any Kingdome in any time can lawfully prejudice diminish or alter Nor may any such Secular laws made be urged as authentical for shewing what are or are not the Church's Rights And therefore in respect of the foresaid Clergy-Rights the Kings of England can have no more priviledge or exemption than the King of France nor in England Henry the Eighth than Henry the Seventh Nor can any person in maintaining the Church's foresaid Rights be any more now a disloyal Subject to his Prince in these than he would have been in those days CORRIGENDA PAg. 2. line 38. of Christians p. 3 l. 16. to Heathen p. 6. l. 15. l. 19. c. p. 8. l. 1. pag. 236. p. 35. l. 37. pag. 53. p. 38. l. 10. § 24. p. 41. ult from denying p. 53. l. 16. pag. 34. p. 56. l. 17. Mariae p. 106. l. 7. § 340. p. 180. l.
c. But this it is for people to meddle in Controversie at an Age when they have forgot their Grammar Notwithstanding therefore this Aristarchus We still retain the Liberty of believing and obeying only such things which be defined according to God's Word For which we are much blamed in the Conclusion of this Discourse * p. 260. In rejection of the Churche's Judgment saith he let none think himself secure in relying on the Testimony of his Conscience or judgment But what reason soever he may have to undervalue the Testimony of a good Conscience we think it advisable from St. Paul * 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 19. to hold faith and a good conscience which some having put away concerning faith have made Ship-wrack Of whom are But saith he let none think himself secure in any of these things so long as his Conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing namely his Disobedience and Inconformity to the Church-Catholic But our Consciences do not witness to us any disobedience to the Church-Catholic but only to that Church which falsly praetends to be Catholic He means to the Major part of the Guides thereof But the cause has not yet been decided by Poll that we should know which side has the Majority Let him know that his Condition is very dangerous when he maketh the Church-Guides of his own time or the major part thereof incommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion There was a time then when to believe the Consubstantiality of the Son was a dangerous Condition and this perhaps made Pope Liberius externally to profess Arrianism When for the maintaining of his Opinions he begins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Church But why not distinguish where the Church her self distinguishes and saith Christ indeed in the Scriptures instituted so but I institute otherwise as in the case of denying the Cup. Between the Doctrines of the Catholic Church of the former ages and of the Catholic Church of the present But here again the Church her self distinguishes when She tells us that * Conc. Const Sess 13. licet in primitiva Ecclesia sub utraque specie Sacramentum reciperetur Yet now the contrary Custom habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Between the Church's orthodoxness in Necessaries and non-necessaries to Salvation If there be no difference betwixt these why doth a * Guide in Controv. Disc 1 c. 6. par 56. Friend of the Author tell us of an Obedience of Assent in the one but of Non-contradition only in the other When he begins to maintain the Autority of an Inferior Ecclesiastical Judge against a Superior But what if this be only where the Inferior Judge agrees tho' not with his immediate Superior yet with the Supreme Or of a minor part of the Church-Guides against a Major But that is not a case yet fairly decided When they grant that God hath given them beside the Scriptures guides of their Faith But those Guides themselves to be guided by the Scripture And that they have in their judgment departed from those Guides i. e. the major part of them But this we would have prov'd Which in a Court consisting of mapy is the legall Judge Guides and Judges are different things but we hope when this Court sits the Judges will consult the Scripture the Statute they are to go by and if they judge according to that they will judge well These are the Doctrines of blind-Obedience which this Author so studiously inculcates For sice Doctrines are taught us different from Scripture we are advis'd to use another way of discerning Doctrines then what the Gospel prescribes Our Saviour bids us Mat. 16.6.12 Beware of the leaven i. e. the doctrine of Pharisee's tho' sitting in Moses his Chair We are now advis'd to embrace all the doctrines of those that sit in the Chair of S. Peter Christ bids us * Mat. 24.4 Take heed that no man deceive us tho' coming in his Name We are now told that they who come to us in the Name of Christ cannot deceive us St. Paul saith * Gal. 1.8 that If an Angel from Heaven preach to us any other Doctrine then that which he preach'd Let him be accurs'd Now if we do not embrace whatever a Patriarch from the West preaches tho' never so contrary to the Gospel we are concluded under an Anathema The Apostles tell us that they * 2 Cor. 1.24 have no Dominion over our Faith but their Successors exercise a Despotic power in requiring a servile Obedience to all their Dictates S. Paul's practise was to * Gal. 2.11.14 withstand Peter to the face When he saw that he walk'd not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel but St. Peter's Successor pleads that in no case he may be withstood because it is impossible but that he should walk uprightly in the truth of the Gospel The inspir'd Divine bids us * Rev. 18.4 Come out of Babylon that we may not partake of her Sins Our modern Theologists advise us to come back into * Babylonia apud Joannem Romanae urbis figura est Tertul. adv Marc. l. 3. c. 13. Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 2. Babylon for that She only is impeccable Imprimatur GILB IRONSIDE Vice-Can Oxon. Octob. 19. 1687. REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORICAL PART OF Church-Government PART V. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his Neighbor cometh and searcheth him Prov. 18.17 OXFORD Printed at the THEATER Anno 1687. The Introduction THE Pamphlet proposes to relate the English Reformation and to examine the lawfulness of it Now from an Examiner we might justly expect Argument and from a Relator Truth How he argues I find consider'd by the Animadverter Two small defects he has been charg'd with 1st That he proceeds upon dubious or false Premises 2ly That were they granted his Conclusions would not follow It is my business to examine his Narrative which yet is not so purely Historical but that it is perplex'd with dispute For it is peculiar to this Author that when he should reason he barely affirms as if he was writing an History but when it is his business to relate being conscious that the stream of Autority is against him he is forc'd to dispute it out as if he was proving a Problem But his arguing is such as the Cause would bear and his History such as it necessarily requires The former has gain'd him no great credit with the Men of Reason and this I doubt will little recommend him to the Honest and Ingenuous But I forbear to prejudge the cause and desire nothing may be farther charg'd on him than it is prov'd I pretend to no Critical skill in the History of the Reformation and I am beholden to the Author that I need it not His prevarications lie so open that a Novice in History may
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
to them That as for himself whatsoever he had pretended his Conscience was fraught with the Religion of his Fathers but being blinded with ambition he had been contented to make wrack of his Conscience by temporizing c. Which calls to my mind likewise the death of Cromwel the great Agent for Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days who then renounced the Doctrines in this time called Heresies and took the people to witness That he dyed in the Catholick Faith of the Holy Church and doubted not in any Sacrament thereof i. e. I suppose as the Doctrine thereof was delivered in those times to be seen in the Necessary Doctrine before mentioned See Fox pag. 1086. comp Lord Herbert p. 462. As for those of the Council who thus complyed not they were after some time expelled as Bishop Tonstal Wriothsley the Chancellor and the Earl of Arundel Goodwin p. 242. And as the Kings chief Governors in the Council so his Under Tutors who had the nearest influence upon him Dr. Cox and Sir John Cheek were men much inclined to the Reformation the one whereof in Queen Elizabeth's days Was made Bishop of Ely the other being imprisoned in Queen Mary's days and upon it abjuring the reformed Religion afterward saith Goodwin pag. 287. became so repentant for it that out of extremity of grief he shortly languished and dyed Such were his nearest Governors And the Complexion of his Parliament for he had but one all his days continued by Prorogation from Session to Session § 105. n. 2. till at last it ended in the death of the King you may learn from Dr. Heylin Hist of Reform p. 48. The Parliament saith he consisted of such Members as disagreed amongst themselves in respect of Religion yet agreed well enough together in one common Principle which was to serve the present time and preserve themselves For tho a great part of the Nobility and not a few of the chief Gentry in the House of Commons were cordially affected to the Church of Rome yet were they willing to give way to all such Acts and Statutes as were made against it out of a fear of losing such Church-lands as they were possessed of if that Religion should prevail and get up again And for the rest who either were to make or improve their fortunes there is no question to be made but that they came resolved to further such a Reformation as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends Thus he As for the Kings Supremacy how far now some of the complying Clergy extended or acknowledged the just power thereof § 105. n. 3. even as to Ordination and Excommunication and administring the Word and Sacraments I think I cannot more readily shew you than by setting down the Queries proposed concerning these things in the first year of this Kings Reign to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and other Bishops and Learned Men when assembled at Windsor for establishing a publick Order for Divine Service and the Arch-Bishops answer to them printed lately by Mr. Stilling fleet out of a Manuscript of this Arch-Bishop Iren. 2. Par. 8 chap. The first Query is Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given them of God To which the Arch-Bishop answers to the King first in general That all Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their Subjects as well concerning the administration of Gods word for the cure of Souls as concerning the ministration of things Political That the Ministers of Gods word under his Majesty be die Bishops Parsons c. That the said Ministers be appointed in every State by the Laws and Orders of Kings That in the admission of many of these Officers be divers comely Ceremonies used which be not of necessity but only for a good order and seemly fashion That there is no more promise of God that Grace is given in the committing the Ecclesiastical office than it is in the committing the Civil Then he answers more particularly That in the Apostles time when there was no Christian Princes by whose authority Ministers of Gods word might be appointed c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundantly the Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods word sometimes the people did choose such as they thought meet thereunto And when appointed by the Apostles the people of their own voluntary will did accept them not for the Supremity Impery or Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good people ready to obey the advice of good Councellors A second Query is Whether Bishops or Priests were first And if the Priests were first whether then the Priest made the Bishop He answers That Bishops and Priests were at one time and were not two things but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Religion The third Query Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the Scriptures or no And whether any other i.e. Secular person but only a Bishop may make a Priest He answers A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures and so may Princes and Governors also and that by authority of God committed unto them and the people also by their Election The fourth Query Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and Priest or only appointing to the office be sufficient Answer In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture for election or appointing thereto is sufficient The fifth Query Whether if it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to conquer certain dominions of Infidels having none but temporal learned men with him it be defended by Gods Law That he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there or no And also make and constitute Priests or no In the next Query which I omit for brevity sake is mentioned also the ministring Baptism and other Sacraments He answers to this and the next That it is not against Gods Law but contrary they ought indeed so to do The seventh Query Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate and for what Crimes And whether they only may excommunicate by Gods law He answers A Bishop or a Priest by the Scriptures is neither commanded nor forbidden to excommunicate But where the Laws of any Region giveth him authority to excommunicate there they ought to use the same in such crimes as the laws have such authority in And where the laws of the Region forbiddeth them there they have none authority at all and they that be no Priests may also excommunicate if the law allow thereunto Thus the Arch-Bishop explains the Kings and Clergies power and right concluding That he doth not temerariously define this his opinion and sentence but remits the Judgment thereof wholly to his Majesty This Text needs no
the Kings learned Council the which they should command in his Majesties behalf to be thenceforth observed of every person to whom they did appertain within their sundry Circuits These Injuctions as we find in the Kings Preface to them are directed to both Clergy and Laity for the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition and the extirpation of enormities and abuses by the King supreme authority assisted by the advice of his most dear Vncle the Duke of Somerset and the esidue of his most honorable Council And of the same universal Visitation made by the Kings appointment thus speak the Antiquit. Britann p. Paulo post omnes Papales caremoniae Missationes Exequiae Sanctorum invocationes mortuorum expiationes precationumque formulae è templis christianorum caetu sublatae atque deletae sunt Ad hanc rem a Rege visitatio totius regni generalis decernitur datique cum amplissimis mandatis certi Visitatores qui singulas Dioceses lustrarent And in this Visitation beside the general Injunctions for the whole estate of the Realm saith Mr. Fox Ibid. there were shops only which were by the Commissioners committed to the said Bishops with charge to be inviolably observed upon pain of the Kings Majesty's displeasure First That they should see and cause all the Kings Injunctions theretofore given or after to be given from time to time thro their Diocess faithfully to be observed Moreover that they should not at any time or place preach or set forth unto the people any Doctrine contrary to the effect and intent set forth in the Kings Highnesse's Homilies which Homilies are the stating of several Doctrinals in Religion neither yet should give Licence to preach to any but to such as they should know for at least assuredly trust would do the same of whom if any offended herein that they should inhibit and punish him and revoke their Licence § 109 Thus much at large out of Mr. Fox touching the first proceedings of the King and his Council in the Reformation In the prohibition of Preaching till he had setled Religion before the calling of any Parliament or Synod But to prosecute this matter a little further after the enjoyning the Doctrine of the Homilies and other matters the King finding much reluctance and opposition to them in many also of this Ministery licenced by their Ordinaries or rather in the Ordinaries also themselves He in the beginning of the second year of his Reign by his Proclamation February the Sixth inhibited any to preach except he were licenced under the Seal either of the Lord Protector or of Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury About this time he restrained likewise the Bishops themselves thought too actively busy in several places of their Diocesses how doth this agree with Mr. Fox his dumb Prelates See before § 107. to preach only in their own Cathedrals a thing saith Winchester writing to the Protector the like whereof hath not been known in any time Fox p. 1224 Some seven Months after neither finding those licenced by the Protector and Arch-Bishop of Canterbury conformable to the Doctrines prescribed By a Proclamation put forth Sept. 23 he inhibited the whole Clergy thro the Kingdome as well saith the Proclamation the said Preachers before licensed as all others whosoever they be to preach in open audience in the Pulpit or otherwise the reason there given because those licenced had abused the said authority of Preaching and had behaved themselves irreverently and without good order in the said preaching contrary to such good instructions as were given unto them the time of silence there prescribed because that his Majesty minded to see very shortly one uniform order throughout this his Realm and to put an end to all Controversies in Religion for which cause at that time certain Bishops and notable learned men by his Highness's command were congregated therefore he inhibited them until the said order shall be set forth which should shew them what Doctrine they were to preach § 110 The defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning K. Edw. Proceedings in matters of Religion composed by some such Bishops and other Learned as were elected to this by the Prince See the Proclamation in Fuller p. 388. Lib. 7. And thus much of the first beginnings and manner of King Edward the Sixth's Reformation In defence of which I find these things said by Dr Fern Consider of Reform 2. c. 9. § c. Dr. Hammond Schism 7 c. 14. § and other 1. That these Injunctions and the like of the King and Council were not set forth α but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to the authority of which Metropolitant much is to be attributed See Cart. Apost 34. and Concil Nicaen 4. c. and of β other Bishops and learned men first consulted with 2. That γ these Injunctions were not set forth as a Body of Doctrine which was an Act of the Synod held in the fifth year of King Edward's Reign but were Provisional only for the publick exercise of Religion and Worship δ which was necessary to be provided for in present Dr. Fern p. 74 75. 3. ζ That they extended only to some evident points the abolishing of Image-worship the restoring of the Liturgy in a known Tongue and Communion in both kinds and the abolishing of Romish Masses ε in which things was the main of King Edward's Reformation p. 71 ζ and that in them the King restored only what was established and used in the ancient Church viz. Divine Service in a known tongue Communion in both kinds without Image-worship p. 76. 4. η That the Kings Injunctions were generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Diocesses as is avouched expresly in the charge given in against Gardiner Bishop of Winchester p. 77. Fox p. 1219 where it is said ' That they were of all men of all sorts obediently received and reverently observed and executed save only of the Bishop of Winchester θ At least that the Kings Injunctions were consented and submitted to by the much major part of Bishops the Bishops imprisoned or ejected being a much smaller number compared with the rest Dr. Hammond p. 147. κ And then that it can make no real difference whether the Reformation begin from a vote of Bishops in Synod and so proceeding to the Prince be by him received and established or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy be by them generally received and put in practice according to the command of the Sovereign authority Dr. Fern p. 80.79 5. μ That at least in the fifth year of King Edward it must be granted that an Ecclesiastical Synod acknowledged the truth and lawfulness of the former Injunctions constituting the same things in a body of forty two Articles of Religion which Articles were shortly after published by the Kings authority with this Title prefixed
convenit inter Archiepiscopos Episcopos Clerum universum or the like Next you may observe that tho the Prolocutor in the Synod 1º Mariae questioneth and Philpot answereth concerning the Catechisme why it should be published in the name of the Synod yet they both speak not of the Catechisme taken by it self but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of this Catechisme and bound up with it which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechisme and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation and so also calleth them the Catechisme because the first title of this Book is Catechismus brevis c. Now that they must speak of the Articles is plain because the Catechisme as taken by it self is not at all entitled to the Synod but only the Articles at the end thereof The Title of the Catechisme is only this Catechismus brevis Christianae disciplinae summam continens omnibus Ludimagistris authoritate regiâ commendatus Neither do those words in Philpot's Answer that the house had committed their Synodal authority to certain persons to be appointed by the King to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient c. agree at all to this Catechisme but to the Articles only For this Catechisme was made before by a private person that is by the Arch-bishop if we may believe his own confession related above and afterward approved only by some Bishops and other eruditi viri as the King saith in the Preface thereof Cum brevis explicata Catechismi ratio a pio quodam erudito viro conscripta nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur ejus diligentem inquisitionem quibusdam episcopis aliis eruditis commisimus quorum judicium magnam apud nos authoritatem habet quia conveniens cum scripturis c. visa est placuit non solum eum in aspectum lucemque proferre sed etiam propter perspicuitatem omnibus ludorum magistris ad docendum proponere c. Neither is this Catechisme abstracted from the Articles any such pestiferous Book or so full of Heresies as the Prolocutor complains of being composed in general terms for School-boys and not stating scarce touching any controversy Add to this that tho the Catechisme was not made by the Synod yet if the 42 Articles that were then printed and bound with the Catechisme were framed by it neither had the Prolocutor any reason to have fallen upon and gotten hands against the Catechisme as being falsly ascribed to that Reverend Assembly when as that which was far more opposite to that which he accounted the Orthodox Religion namely these Articles were known to be passed by them Neither would Philpot have concealed this matter since this known Act of the Synod composing these Articles would have justified that Act of the Delegates composing the Catechisme for the Doctrine of the Catechisme is contained in the Articles But if by this Catechisme both the Prolocutor and Philpot meant the Articles at the end thereof as it cannot be otherwise then Philpot hath revealed to us all the truth concerning the composing or ratifying of them and why in the impression they were ascribed to the Synod Namely because the Synod had given authority to those the King should nominate to make Ecclesiastical Laws and so by those persons being Episcopi alii eruditi viri were these Articles compiled or confirmed the Synod it seems leaving both this matter and the election of the persons for doing of it to the Kings care without reserving any review thereof to themselves contrary to the First Second and Sixth Theses But Mr. Philpot discovers the motive which this Synod if he meant this and not some former Synod might have to do this when he mentions a former Act of Parliament 3 4. Edw. 6.11 c. enstating the King in this power which Act was made two years before the Session of this Synod but then this is somewhat strange that what was acknowledged formerly as the Kings right is now made by Mr. Philpot the Clergy's concession to him Thus then were these Articles made not by but after the Synod and this is the reason why tho the production of such a Body of Articles would have been by much the solemnest Act of a Synod that was done in King Edward's days yet both the Records and the Historians Fox Godwin Antiquitates Britanicae and those others that I have seen are silent therein And the Arch-bishop to whom it would have been an excellent defence to have shewed them tho of his compiling yet to have been confirmed and generally subscribed by such a full Synod yet he also pleads no such thing And hence we may learn the reason of that which Dr. Heylin observeth p. 25. That tho a Parliament was held at this very time and that this Parliament had passed several Acts which concerned Church-matters as an Act for Vniformity of Divine Service and for the Confirmation of the Book of Ordination 5 6. Edw. 6.1 c. An Act declaring which days shall only be kept for Holy-days and which for Fasting-days 3. c. An Act against striking or drawing any weapon in the Church or Church-yard 4. c. An Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests 12. c. Yet neither in this Parliament saith he nor in that which followed is there so much as the least Syllable which reflecteth this way or medleth any thing at all with the Book of Articles Thus Dr. Heylin Which Observation as to him it affords an Argument that Religion reformed in these Articles therefore can be called no Parliament-Religion so to me that it was also no Synodal-Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating or rather preventing the Synod in all other Transactions about the Reformation See before § 47. Neither can it be said improper to the Parliament to enjoyn obedience to these as well as it had done to other Church or Synod-decrees § 170 If it be urged here what Philpot urged of the Catechisme that these Articles are Synodical because the Synod conceded to the King the election of such persons who should frame and publish these Articles without any communicating them first to the Synod See the Answer returned to this before § 42. CHAP. XI The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical Affairs And of the unlawful Ejection of the Catholicks § 171 HAving thus from § 104. viewed the course of the Reformation under King Edward 3. The Acting of Qu. Elâ—z in Ecclesiastical matters now I pass to that under Queen Elizabeth one much interessed to renew an opposition to the Pope in as much as his pronouncing King Henry's Marriage with Anne Bullen her Mother unlawful invalidated her Title to the Crown Upon which Mary the Queen of Scots a Catholick All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and Edw. days being reversed by the Clergy iâ— Q. Mary's dâ—ys newly married to the Daulphin of France and animated by the
other general words whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfections or disability that could be objected against the same So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queens Highness i. e. in Ecclesiasticals which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops See it before §. 70 it is evident that no cause of scruple ambiguity or doubt can be justly objected against the said Consecrations c. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church in these Church matters And the Answer seems in effect this That tho these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church § 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject this reformed Clergy being such persons as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince and therefore it is not strange if the Prince acted no more against but by them and began now a-new to use the Synod more than the Senate in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs CHAP. XIII The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy § 196 ONly before I conclude this Discourse let me shew you The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it after all the rest that as it hath been affirmed here that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines tho they contend that our Princes did not so Yet as if they doubted much whether they should be able to make this good do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves that a Prince when there is a necessity that requires it of which necessity the Prince is to judge or in cases extraordinary of which cases the Prince is to judge may lawfully reform Religion both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline contrary to the major part of the Clergy these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel Upon which also they make no scruple to joyn Communion with those Transmarine Protestants whom all grant to have reformed against all their Spiritual Superiors Nay also in the beginning of this work such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronize this Tenent because if they should once maintain That no Reformation is valid which is done against the major part of the National Clergy by the same reason they must assert that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy or of the Church or Council to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience § 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion is that of Dr. Field He The Opinion of Dr. Field after these specious Concessions We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on according to former resolutions Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion but in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgment of former Councils in matters not formerly determined to the judgment of his Clergy i. e. the major part thereof Yet after such specious Concessions I say he proceedeth as it were to protect the Reformation on this manner Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service there is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them But because they may fail they i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and not onely single persons but Synods of them else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods and a minor by the major part and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them and the Judgment of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these to other Judges either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over Gods people and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy tho more which he dislikes to some others of the Clergy tho fewer whom he approves for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily Thus Dr. Field § 198 Who not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi cui deplorata res est here seems to six the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice to others or at least cannot fail so soon as the whole body of the Clergy may what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they As one that hath a charge over Gods people and is to see that they worship God aright as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he or as if he could judge what was
right in Gods Worship better than they Again he represents this body or the major part of this Clergy as those that may fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians and into Heresies condemned he meaneth by former Clergy But why may not those former Clergy be supposed by the Prince to have erred sometimes contrary to the common sense of Christians as well as the present Clergy And if the present Clergy may err against common sense in Spiritual matters why may not the Secular Prince sooner And why should not they discern former condemned Heresies better than he Or if in all these things the Prince be liable to mistakes to sects and sides and partialities as much as they why are not they made his Judges in these Spiritual matters who cannot be denyed to be his Spiritual Fathers in respect of his Christianity rather than he theirs But however this Dr. plainly saith that there may be some cases wherein concerning errors in Faith or aberrations in the performance of Gods Worship the Prince may judge and condemn the whole Clergy or may remove the matter from their to a Secular judgment or to such other Ecclesiastical Judges as he shall choose who hardly can ever want some amongst the Clergy suting with his desires § 199 In the next place hear the judgment of Mr. Mason de Minist Angl. He Of Mr. Mason De Minist Ang. 3. l. 3. ◠after having thus expostulated with his Adversary Quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causis fidei religionis supremos esse cognitores judices De hac a Cardinale Bellarmino aliis Pontificiis ecclesiae Anglicanae illatâ injuriâ sic olim conquestus est doctissimus Whittakerus Affirmat Jesuita hunc judicem non esse Principem aliquem saecularem Respondeo Hoc quoque nos dicimus Thus states this matter to Philodoxus p. 272. Pastorum est dubia Legis explicare Regum vero veritatem cognitam sibi promulgare subditis cujuscunque sint ordinis i. e. whether Clergy or Laity imperare But here I cannot but ask one question May not the Clergy then veritatem cognitam quandocunque rex contra nititur promulgare subditis suis in illius regno quorum animarum curam gerunt Now to go on Regis enim est saith he pag. 273. ex praestituto legis omnia facere Adhibebit igitur media quae hac in causâ adhiberi par est leget scripturas orabit Dominum juris divini peritissimos consulet Nec tamen splendidis hominum titulis aut suffragiorum numero aut locorum privilegiis tantum deferet quantum veritati i. e. that which he conceives to be truth paucis secundum scripturas docentibus i. e. whom he conceives to teach so potius credet quam 400 pseudoprophetis pro cultu Baalis contendentibus And after such consultation then Illius est serenitatis suae edicta sancire promulgare So 3. l. 4. c. he saith concerning his opposing Councils Imperator etiam in sacrosanctis fidei mysteriis pro veritate i. e. quae sibi videtur jubere potest Concilii decreto in contrarium non obstante And Penes Imperatorem esse potestatem Conciliorum constituta sacris Scripturis consentanea i. e. quae sibi videntur aut aliis paucis confirmandi contraria vero cassandi agnoscit Leo but he mistaketh Leo. And Neque ad Primatum Regium quicquam interest See below §. 211. sive praelucentes Synodorum sententias habeat rex sive non habeat Sive enim veritatem caelestem ipsi dignoscant sive a praelatis suis edocti ediscant dummodo pro veritate i. e. quae sibi videtur jubeant leges condant verè se exhibent supremos gubernatores Thus Mr. Mason § 200 Let us now see what he hath said The King before he do any thing in Controversies of Religion ought to consult the Clergy and to follow the truth known What That which the Clergy tell him to be the truth No. But only that in which he findeth them to judge aright and according to the Scriptures which judgement he may entertain tho it be a smaller part of the Clergy that judge so Here therefore the King judgeth when or which of the Clergy judgeth aright and which otherwise and is at his liberty to follow therein any number of them And neither is he thus a Judge for himself-only judicio discretivo as they call it but for others too judicio decisivo which the Clergy are not so far as to promulgate and command all his Subjects and amongst them the Clergy to obey that which he upon consulting the Clergy and hearing their reasons judgeth to be according to Gods word and this without the consent of the Clergy at all or at least of the major part of them But they may not promulgate what they judge according to Gods word in such Controversies without the Kings consent And yet quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causis fidei religionis supremos esse cognitores judices I would fain speak it plainly if I could A Controversy is agitated in Religion the King consulteth his Clergy about it they give him their reasons why such a Proposition is agreeable to the Scriptures He considers the Scriptures and their reasons and judgeth upon it that their reasons are faulty and that they define not juxta legem and that the contradictory Proposition which perhaps some few of the Clergy compared with the rest or perhaps none of them maintain is according to Scripture Whereupon he publisheth this contradictory Proposition to all his Subjects Clergy as well as Laity by his edicts and requireth their obedience thereto Is not the Prince then a Judge of such Controversy as well as nay rather than the other and over and after the other Commanding obedience to him from the other 'T is true that Mr. Mason and others acknowledge in matters of Religion no visible judge on earth that is infallible But he acknowledgeth a Judge judicio discretivo for himself and this is every private man Again he acknowledgeth a Supreme visible publick Judge on earth judicio decisivo so far as to command such a Doctrine to be received by all his Subjects Ecclesiastical and Laick for a truth which he by his judicium discretionis holds to be so And this is every Christian Prince within his own Dominions Therefore Mr. Mason sticks not to say elsewhere Nihil impedit quin Principes doceant suo modo i. e. regali De Minist 3. l. 6. c. Nam qui legem salutarem sancit is quid faciendum sit docet Docet inquam omnes suos subditos etiam Episcopos eosque si forte in hujusmodi legem incurrant i. e. his Spiritual Law made by him sometimes against their consent when by his judicium discretivum he discovers them to err juxta eandem judicare potest However this is clear out of Mr. Mason 1.
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
divinitatis humanitatis Jesu Christi by necessary consequence which was established in the Council of Nice superior to this in number and universally accepted Ex iis qui convenerant rejectis aliis amongst which the Legates of the Bishop of Rome and Western Churches aliis subscribere coactis a militibus cum fustibus gladiis reclusis in ecclesia usque ad vesperam Upon such reasons the Bishop of Rome See cons. Chalced. Act. 1. and th Synod of the Occidental Churches with him not accepting the decrees of this Council supplicated the Emperor See Leo. Epist 23. ad Theod. not to confirm but cassate the Acts thereof and defendere contra haraeticos inconcussum ecclesiae statum sending him the Canons of the Council of Nice Now thus a Prince both may and ought to cassate the Acts of an illegal Council such as you see this is but now described to be when a major Ecclesiastical power I mean the greater part of the Church Catholick declareth it to him to be factious and opposing the truth and definitions of former General Councils universally accepted Neither doth the Prince herein exercise any Supremacy but that which all allow namely the defending and protecting of the Church's judgments But therefore a Prince may not oppose the Acts of a Council when himself or a few others against the main body of the Church judge it to have been factious or to have opposed or not to have sufficiently evidenced the truth The former was the case of Theodosius The later of the Reformers Of which Theodosius how religious an observer he was of the Church's decrees and how free from challenging any such Supremacy as to alter or establish any thing against them see his cautious message to the first Ephesine Council when he sent Candidianus to preside therein Concil Epoes Tom. 1. Eâ lege Candidianum Comitem ad sacram vestram Synodum abire jussimus ut cum quaestionibus controversiis quae circa fidei dog mata incidant nihil quicquam commune habeat Nefas est enim qui S. Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est illum ecclesiasticis negotiis consultationibus sese immiscere From which all that I would gain is this That Theodosius was of opinion that no Lay-person whatsoever might so far interest himself in Religious and Episcopal Controversies not as to make himself Arbitrator of the Conciliary proceedings to see that the votes thereof be free from Secular violence and all things therein regularly carried c. for this is his duty who beareth that Sword which keepeth men most in awe but as to make himself Arbitrator of the Councils Definitions to examine whether they are made secundum or contra legem Christi and to prohibit them when not evidenced to him by the Council to be so because he is Custos utriusque Tabulae for in these things it is his duty to submit to whatever is the judgment of those who are appointed by Christ to interpret to Princes his Law A Prince therefore may void the Acts of a Council freely on this account because such Council is unduly carried and its decrees not accepted by the Catholick-Church and so because its doctrines are not the doctrines of the Church but never on this account because such Council hath made some definition to him seeming contrary to the Law of Christ or hath not evidenced to him their definition to have been according to it So that a lawful Regal Supremacy in confirming any definitions of the Clergy made in Spiritual matters omitteth that clause of limitation which is every where put in by Dr. Fern when evidenced to it to be the law of Christ or when the law of Christ is not evidenced to be contrary to their definitions which is indeed the chief Pillar of the Reformation and changeth it into this limitation when evidenced to it to be the Law or Judgment or Sentence of the Church The instance in the King of France his forbidding the decrees of the Council of Trent hath been largely spoken to in Chur. Gover. 4. Part § 212 64. § 7. n. 1 No decrees of that Council concerning matters of Faith or Doctrine were opposed by the French King but only some decrees concerning Reformation 2 His opposition of it further than he can pretend it to have some way encroached on his civil rights is not justifiable and by his own Clergy as well as the rest of the world disallowed § 213 Lastly the instance in the good Kings of Judah inculcated so frequently by all these Writers is copiously spoken-to in Succession of Clergy § 38.68 1. As the Kings of Judah had a charge of conserving the true Religion by their coactive power with temporal punishments on offenders and were justly blamed for their defects herein So had the Priests by their coercive power with their Spiritual censures and were as justly blameable as the Prince in any neglect thereof 2. It cannot be shewed in holy writ that the Princes of Judah ought not and did not both in their Reformations of Religion ask counsel of the Priests and exactly follow their advice and decrees except in such matters of duty as were not controverted at all nor contradicted by the Priest Now where no doubt is made by any party there needs no consultation and the Prince may tell the Priest of his unquestioned duty without asking his leave 3. It cannot be shewed that the Princes of Judah ever reformed any thing against the judgment of the whole body or of the major part of the Priests I mean those Priests who continued in their former profession of the Law of Moses and did not professedly relinquish it and openly apostatize to Idolatry with whom being extra ecelesiam the Prince had nothing to do 4. It cannot be shewed there that the Priests might not lawfully have reformed Religion without or against the Prince nor that they did not at some times endeavour it with inflicting their Spiritual censures tho successless herein whilst opposed by the Temporal power We are to take heed of negative arguments from Scripture such a thing is not said there therefore it was not but rather ought to infer the contrary to this is not said there therefore it might be 5 The Kings part in the Reformation being acted with Temporal power therefore was successful and went thro with the business and having the chief or only success therefore is most spoken of especially in those Books which were written for Histories of the Kings Acts. And indeed when have not Princes by reason of this their Secular power had the greatest reputation for altering of Religion even where the Clergy have been most active See the doctrine of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this point of Supremacy set down already in Chur. Gover. 1. Part § 39. c. And of Bishop Bramhal in Cathol Thes Head 9. § 17. § 214 The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of these Princes transcending that ch lâ—eaged
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
a Burn. V. 2. p. 81. Burnet who met with no footsteeps of it neither in Records nor Letters nor in any Book written at that time The succeeding Paragraphs of this Chapter pretend to give Us the defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceedings § 110. to § 136 together with our Author 's Rational Replies But besides that from the fair dealing of this Author already detected we have no reason to expect him ingenuous in representing the Arguments of our Divines with their just weight it may be farther offer'd by way of Precaution that those excellent Divines which he refers to wanted one advantage which we of this Age have from a more complete and Authentic History of the Reformation and among other things not knowing of the b Bur. Hist V. 1. Pref. rasure of Records made in Q. Mary's Reign pleaded to those Negative Arguments which we have good reason to reject This premis'd I proceed to consider with all possible brevity his Alphabet of Arguments α Urges that these Injunctions were not set forth but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan and β of other Bishops § 111 112 The substance of his Reply to α and β is that these Injunctions had not the Autority of the Metropolitan as such i. e. as acting with the major part of the Synod Now α β may easily rejoyn that where the matter of the Injunctions is lawful much more where it is necessary as being commanded in Scripture there the coactive Autority of the Prince is sufficiently Obligatory and that since the Office of Pastors whether in or out of Synod is directive these Injunctions proceeding from the direction of both the Metropolitans for a Bur. V. 2. p. 25. Holgate also Arch Bishop of York was a Reformer and b Ibid. other Learned Bishops were not destitute of Ecclesiastical Autority γ Saith these Injunctions were not set forth as a body of Doctrine which was the Act of the Synod in the 5th of King Edward but were provisional only for the publick exercise of Religion and Worship and Gamma is in the right of it for any thing his Replyer faith to the contrary who doth not pretend that they were A new Objection indeed is started and pretended instances given that King Edward claim'd a power for rectifying the Doctrines of his Clergy § 113 But not to trouble the Reader with examining the Instances we say that such a power might have been justly exercis'd and that a Prince requiring his Clergy to receive and teach such Doctrines as were taught by our Saviour usurps no Autority not invested in him δ Saith The publick Exercise of Religion was necessary to be provided for at present § 114 It is answer'd that the Judgment of a National Synod was necessary for such Provision For the proof of that we are refer'd to c Ch. Gov. Part. 4th a Book which no Bookseller has yet had the courage to undertake and therefore for a Reply I remit him to the Answer to it which he will find at any Shop where Church-Government Part the 4th is to be sold ζ Saith The Injunctions extend only to some evident points the abolishing of Image Worship the restoring of the Liturgy in a known tongue and Communion in both kinds and the abolishing of Romish Masses and that in the three former the King restor'd only what was establish'd in the Ancient Church § 118 It is replied that nothing is said in ξ of taking away the Mass But if the Reader be pleas'd to consult ζ he will be satisfied of our Author's modesty If ζ did not charge the Mass with Novelty it was because the Respondent had the management of the Opposition As for the other three points § 117 he confesses that the Reformation in them restor'd the practice of the Primitive Church and so kind he is that he could have pardon'd us this had we not proceeded to pronounce the contrary Doctrines unlawful A very heynous aggravation this when he himself confesses that Errâ—urs in practice do always presuppose Errors in Doctrine § 1 From which Zeta doth humbly subsume that those Church Governors who would have been facile to licence a change of their practice ought not to have been difficile in allowing us a decession from their Doctrine § 115 The Controversie betwixt out Author and ε is so trifling that it is not worth troubling the Reader with it For this reason perhaps it was that Zeta took Epsilon's place η Urges that these Injunctions were generally receiv'd and put in practice by the Bishops and θ much-what the same that they were consented to by the major part of Bishops The Answer to this consists of some Pages but what is material in it will ly in a less room It is urg'd that some were averse to the Reformation that the Compliers were guilty of dissimulation of an outward compliance whilst contrarily affected that they remain'd of the old Religion in their heart wore vizours took up a disguise and were sway'd by the fear of a new Law-giving Civil power To this η and θ will not be so rude as to rejoyn that it may perhaps be this Editor's personal Interest to prove that these Bishops complied against their Consciences and that Hypocrisie was the general principle of that party but that it is little for the honour of the Communion which he would seem to be of to urge that the whole body of it's Pastors were guilty of the highest prevarication possible with God and Man But this doth doth not at all affect our Divines who only urge that those Bishops conform'd and might in charity have hop'd that they did it Honestly but are not concern'd that this Compliance was from base and ungenerous Motives What is said here of the Liturgy shall be consider'd in λ where it ought to have been said I cannot dwell upon the History of these Paragraphs but there are in it some bold strokes worthy of our Author He blushes not to cite Parson's Conversions § 121 a book made up of lying and Treason and which might have made the Mastery in Assurance betwixt it's Author and Sanders disputable had not Posterity seen a third Person who may seem to have put an end to the quarrel In a citation from Fuller § 124 tho' he refers us to the very Page he puts upon us four Popish Bishops more then Fuller reckons Aldrich Bishop of Carlile Goodrich Bishop of Ely Chambers Bishop of Peterborough and King Bishop of Oxford Now tho' by the absolute Autority of a Church-Governor he might have impos'd these four Bishops on us Yet it seems very hard that Fuller should be commanded to satisfie us of this point who not only mentions no such Bishops but in his Marginal notes tell 's us that he thinks Oxford and Ely were at that time void We are told that Cranmer in the beginning of King Edward's days call'd a Synod § 127 wherein he endeavour'd to
the Replyer to the Discourse of Caelibacy call his Book a Reply to the Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther they would not take it ill to be laught at and yet this is our Author's way of arguing But the Prolocutor speaks of the Articles of the Catechism and therefore must mean the Articles at the end of the Catechism Now this is only a quibbling upon Mr. Fox's way of expression who by the Articles of the Catechism means no more then the matter of the Catechism as is evident both from the Context and from Fox's b Decretis simul rebus de quibus acturi essent nempe de Catechismi libro deque iis quae ad Sacramenti altaris praesentiam transubstantiationem attinebant postquam de his ita rebus atque id genus prolegomenis primo die transactum est secundo deinde die Prolocutor in Synodum ingressus duas secum Schedas affert quarum unâ Christi naturalis in Sacramento praesentia affirmabatur alterâ vero Catechismum neque Synodi autoritate editum neque eidem etiamnum adhuc Synodum assentiri Job Filpottus Videmini Vos omnes turpissime falli quod vos ita oftendat Catechismi inscriptio Rerum in Eccl. gest Comm. à Joh. Fox p. 215. Edit Basil Latin History where the Conference is related in such words as being void of all Ambiguity leave no room for Sophistry Fox saith Philpot stood up and spake first concerning the Article of the Catechism that He thought they were deceiv'd in the Title of the Catechism Where I hope our Author will not understand by the singular Article the 42 Articles And it is observable that what Fox in English calls in one place the Articles of the Catechism and the Article of the Catechism in an other that the Latin Fox calls Catechismi liber in one place and Catechismus in the other So that it is evident our Author here only sports himself with a poor clinch upon the English word Article But it is said that the Prolocutor propos'd the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation I am apt to lose my patience when I find one cavilling at this rate who seems not so much as to have seen King Edward's Articles The matter propos'd for disputation was the Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the 28th of King Edward's a See them in Sparrow's Collections or Bur. V. 2. Coll. Articles concerns Baptism In the 39 Articles as they now stand the 28th concerns the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper and therefore he unthinkingly judg'd it must have been the same in King Edward's 42 Articles But how doth it follow that because the Natural Presence is spoke of in the Articles therefore when another question was propos'd whether the Catechism was agreed to by the former Synod by Catechism there must be meant the Articles This is such a Consequence as ill becomes a Disciple of Occham What if the same matter be also propos'd in the Catechism Then I hope proposing this for disputation is no Argument that by the Catechism is meant the Articles I desire therefore the Reader to consult the b Inde non efficitur ut nobis sit corpore praesens cum alia divinitatis ejus sit ratio humanitatis alia Haec est creata alia increata haec in aliquo coeli loco illa autem sic ubique est ut coelum terram impleat Quod ad corpoream Christi hic in terris praesentiam attinet si magna parvis componere licet sic Christi corpus praesens est nostrae fidei ut Sol cum cernatur praesens est oculo cujus corpus tametsi corporaliter oculum non contingat atque hic in terris praesens praesenti adsit tamen corpus Solis praesens est visui etiam reluctante intervalli distantia Sic corpus Christi quod in gloriosa ejus Ascensione nobis sublatum est quodque reliquit mundum ad Patrem abiit ore nostro abest etiam cum sacrosanctum corporis sanguinis ejus Sacramentum ore nostro excipimus fides autem nostra versatur in coelis ac intuetur Solem justitiae ac praesens praesenti in coelis haud aliter illi adest ac visus adest corpori solis in coelis aut Sol in terris visui c. M. Video mi fili te neutiquam ignorare quomodo dicatur Christus corpore absens Spiritu praesens Quemadmodum pane vino vita nostra naturalis sustinetur ac nutritur sic corpore i. e. carne sanguine Christi anima per fidem nutritur ac vegetatur Ista fiunt occulta quadam energia Spiritûs quando credimus Christum corpus sanguinem suum pro nobis tradidisse c. See much more to the same purpose in the Catechism Margin and he will be satisfied that the Corporal Presence is there denied and that the Prolocutor had greater reason to call this Book Heretical then our Author has to affirm without any regard to truth that it doth not State scarce touch any Controversie But still it is plain they must speak of the Articles because the Catechism as taken by it self is not at all entitled to the Synod but only the Articles at the end thereof The Catechism which we now find bound up with the Articles is not I confess entitled to the Synod but that either this or some other Catechism of which the dispute here is rais'd was so entitled is put out of all doubt by a passage we meet with else-where in a p. 1440. Fox where Weston thus charges Cranmer You have set forth a Catechism in the Name of the Synod of London and yet there be 50 which witnessing that they were of the Number of the Convocation never heard one word of that Catechism Cran. I was ignorant of the setting too of that Title and as soon as I had knowledge thereof I did not like it Here the Discourse proceeds altogether upon a Catechism and there is no subterfuge for a pretence that Catechism is another word for Articles Philpot's words are not applicable to the Catechism but to the Articles only Philpot pleads that the Catechism might be entitled to the Synod because the House had committed their Synodal Autority to certain Persons to be appointed by the King to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient Now I see no reason why a Catechism doth not as properly come under the Denomination of Laws Ecclesiastical as Articles or how the Catechism's being drawn up by Cranmer can be a reason that it could not be meant but the Articles when the Articles also were drawn up by Cranmer as our Author himself proves from Fox But if the 42 Articles were fram'd by the Synod the Prolocutor had no reason to get hands to the Catechism as falsly ascrib'd to that Synod when what was more opposite to what he accounted the Orthodox Religion namely the Articles was known to
be past by them It was not the Doctrine of the Catechism or Articles which was here question'd but the false ascription of the Catechism to the Synod Now the Articles being undeniably genuine they content themselves only to condemn the Doctrine of them but the Catechism being suppos'd illegitimate they subscribe both against it's Doctrine and Autority Nor could Philpot have pleaded as our Author would have had him that the Synod's composing the Articles justified the Act of the Delegates composing the Catechism since this might indeed warrant the Doctrine of the Catechism but not the entitling it to the Synod He saith all the Historians that he hath seen are silent concerning these Articles In this dispute concerning the Articles Dr. Heylin is twice mention'd and two several Books of his refer'd to in those very pages where he mentions these Articles In his a Heylin's Hist p. 121. History He thinks them debated and concluded on by a Grand Committee on whom the Convocation had devolv'd their power and esteems it not improbable that these Articles being debated and agreed upon by the said Committee might also pass the Vote of the whole Convocation though we find nothing to that purpose in the Acts thereof which either have been lost or never were registred I add or being once Registred were expung'd In his Reformation justified a Ref Justif § 4. He positively affirms that the Clergy in Synod 1552. did compose and agree upon a book of Articles Neither therefore is Dr. Heylin silent herein nor is he one of the Historians which this Author never saw Dr. Burnet is another Historian whom either this Editor had seen or ought not to have publish'd this Relation till he had first consulted him He peremptorily affirms b Bur. V 2. p. 195. that in the Year 1552. the Convocation agreed to the Articles of Religion that were prepar'd the year before But our Author has still another Objection in reserve that the Arch-Bishop Cranmer to whom it would have been an excellent Defence to have shew'd these Articles to have been subscrib'd by a full Synod yet pleaded no such thing That Reverend Martyr pleaded that the Opinions which he maintain'd were the Doctrines of the Scripture and Primitive Church that the rejection of the Pope's Supremacy the fundamental Heresie of which he was accus'd was the Unanimous Act of the whole English Clergy and Nation and which his very Judges had solemnly sworn to Now if this Plea could avail nothing in his Defence it must have been a weak Plea to have insisted on Articles past in a Synod call'd by himself and over which he by reason of his Archiepiscopal Autority had great Influence This dispute is concluded with a shrewd Remark which our Author raises from a passage of Dr. Heylin The Dr. observes that this Book of Articles was not confirm'd by any Act of Parliament whence he concludes that the Reform'd Religion cannot be call'd a Parliament Religion Hence this Author gathers that neither was it a Synodal Religion because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating the Synods in all other transactions of the Reformation Now tho' there is ground for the Drs. observation because there is never an Act which formally gives Sanction to these Articles yet there is in one of those very Acts cited from the Doctor in this Pamphlet that which quite overthrows our Author's Conclusion For in the Act for Legitimating Marriages of Priests it is said that the untrue Slanderous report of Holy Matrimony did redound to the High dishonour of the Learned Clergy of this Realm who have determin'd the same to be most Lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation as well by common Assent as by the Subscription of their Hands Which words plainly refer to the 31st of these Articles and are an Authoritative Testimony that they are the genuine Act of the Synod and had I doubt not been expung'd had the Commission of rasure extended to the Statute-Book I have insisted the longer on this particular because it is a matter of some moment and because the Author has here us'd more then ordinary Artifice I have not had the benefit of any Registers or Manuscripts nor am I skill'd in these niceties of History What has been said sufficiently overthrows all his Cavils but the Curious and the Learned are able to give a more Authentic and Solid account of this matter A Reply to Chapter the 11th THat the Reformation was restor'd by Q. Elizabeth after the extirpation of it by Q. Mary might have been said in fewer lines than this Author is pleas'd to use Paragraphs That some things were at first reduc'd without Synodal Autority I confess and that the Reformation had it's last settlement by a Synod he cannot deny The Act of the first Popish Convocation I esteem illegal because the Q. had sent and requir'd them under the pain of a Premunire not to make Canons The Canonicalness of Q. Mary's Clergy here acting depends upon his former Proofs which were not altogether Demonstrative But let their Autority be suppos'd just yet these Constitutions were repeal'd by a later Synod whose Autority must be conceded equal and therefore their Act as being the last Autoritative The stress therefore of the Controversy lies in this whether Q. Elizabeth's new Bishops were lawfully introduc'd and this depends upon the legality of the ejection of the Old The Cause of their ejection is confest to be their denial of the Oath of Supremacy and is just or unjust according as that Oath was lawful or unlawful Our Author therefore sets himself to examine that Oath where he first puts his own Exposition upon it and then attacqs it as so expounded Neither Q. Elizabeth's explication of her own Sense nor the Church's Exposition in her Articles favour his Construction Those who take this Oath are not perswaded that they abjure the Autority of a General Council or the Jurisdiction of their own National Clergy But if we accept it in that Sense which he is pleas'd to impose upon it Yet still the Strength of his Arguments depends on such Assertions as are to be supported by his four first part of Church-Government We must therefore wait the Edition of those before We can be satisfied of the Strength of these But if we may make an estimate of future performances from past there is no reason to expect any thing formidable from that Quarter For the only business of our Modern Controvertists is to rally up those scatter'd forces which have long since quitted the field to our Forefathers This Oath of Supremacy has exercis'd the Pens of the greatest Champions of both Churches and there is not a shadow of an Argument here brought against it but what has been baffled when manag'd with better skill and more Learning than this Author is Master of The Regal Supremacy in Opposition to the Papal has been asserted by our Kings James the first and Charles the first